ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that Her Majesty has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:
	Waste and Emissions Trading Act 2003
	Arms Control and Disarmament (Inspections) Act 2003
	European Union (Accessions) Act 2003
	Fires Services Act 2003

PRIVATE BUSINESS

London Local Authorities Bill [Lords]

Motion made,
	That the promoters of the London Local Authorities Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
	That, if the bill is brought from the Lords in the next session, a declaration signed by the agent shall be deposited in the Private Bill Office, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill brought from the Lords in the present session;
	That the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay upon the Table of the House a certificate, that such a declaration has been deposited;
	That in the next session the bill shall be deemed to have passed through every stage through which it has passed in the present session, and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having passed those stages;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Hon. Members: Object.
	To be considered on Monday 17 November.

Mersey Tunnels Bill

Ordered,
	That so much of the Lords Message [11th November] as relates to the Mersey Tunnels Bill be now considered.
	That the promoters of the Mersey Tunnels Bill shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with it, if they think fit, in the next session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so is lodged in the Private Bill Office not later than the day before the close of the present session and that all fees due up to that date have been paid;
	That on the fifth sitting day in the next session the Bill shall be presented to the House by deposit in the Private Bill Office;
	That a declaration signed by the agent shall be annexed to the Bill, stating that it is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of its proceedings in this House in the present session;
	That on the next sitting day following presentation, the Clerk in the Private Bill Office shall lay the bill on the Table of the House and, when so laid, the bill shall be read the first, second and third time and shall be recorded in the Journal of the House as having been so read;
	That no further fees shall be charged to such stages.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
	Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

Oral Answers to Questions

TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Private Finance Initiative

Chris Grayling: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the use of the private finance initiative.

Gordon Brown: Since 1997, total investment in public services has grown from £23 billion to £40 billion, with private finance initiatives contributing £4.6 billion of that this year—around 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. in any one year. We now propose to extend by pilots the PFI into provision for prisons, urban regeneration, social housing and waste services. I can also announce to the House that I will present my pre-Budget report on Wednesday 10 December.

Chris Grayling: Virtually all major capital expenditure is now being funded by PFI schemes through off-balance-sheet debt. In my constituency, a proposed hospital scheme would mean increased repayment costs of £20 million a year—more than the local health economy can afford. When I asked the Treasury in a written question what the repayment costs are for existing schemes, it could not answer the question. Does the Chancellor know the true cost of the debt that he is building up for the nation through these off-balance-sheet schemes?

Gordon Brown: The figures are published at table C20 of the Budget report, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to that. First, I congratulate him on his reappointment to the Conservative Front Bench, and all 88 Conservative Members who are now joining the slimmed-down Opposition Front Bench. We look forward to debating with the 20 Conservative Front-Bench Members who are now responsible for economic affairs. The Conservatives cannot complain any longer about public sector job creation.
	On the future of PFI, the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues are completely wrong about the unfunded liabilities. We follow exactly the same rules as were followed by the previous Government, except for one thing—we tightened up the accounting standards. We follow exactly the same rule for disclosure, except that we give every aspect, including maintenance, in the disclosure of figures in table C20. The Conservative party is now in the amazing situation in which it is against public investment and now appears to be against PFI. It will spend nothing on hospitals and schools—how many hospitals and schools would close under the Conservatives?

George Stevenson: Can I refer my right hon. Friend to the private finance initiative in Stoke-on-Trent, which after decades of Tory deprivation has resulted in nine new primary schools being built and every school in Stoke-on-Trent being refurbished? One of the strengths of this successful private finance initiative has been that not a school building or a single member of staff was transferred to the private sector. Will he revisit this successful scheme to see what lessons can be learned for the future?

Gordon Brown: On the question of employment, we are discussing with the various parties concerned how we can secure the proper employment conditions for people who move from the public sector into PFI projects, as well as new recruits for PFI projects, just as we are doing for best value in local government. My hon. Friend is absolutely right—the Conservatives said that we would never increase the PFI when we came into government. We are now spending in total £35 billion on PFI projects. It is costing £4 billion to £5 billion a year on the balance sheet, which is exactly how it should be. It is 2 per cent. of annually managed expenditure, and perfectly affordable. I find it amazing that the people who urged us to support PFI in the first place have now walked away from it entirely.

Howard Flight: May I first congratulate the Chancellor and Mrs. Brown on the birth of their son? I hope that it will lead to benign views towards those of us who have many children to look after.
	The Chancellor will be aware that many large businesses have off-balance-sheet liabilities—I assume that that is, in part, where he spotted the opportunity for the Government. He will also know that auditors are quite rightly urging businesses to take those liabilities into account in the prudent management of their overall finances. What account has he taken of £100 billion of off-balance-sheet Government liabilities, which represent the present value of total PFI payments for the next 30 years and the guarantees given on behalf of Network Rail and London and Continental? What account will he take of them in his plans to address the rapidly deteriorating public finances?

Gordon Brown: I thank the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury for his good wishes. If I am to have sleepless nights, I fully intend that the Opposition should have some as well. As for the figure of £100 billion that he cited in a speech yesterday, it is totally bogus and completely wrong. Fifty-seven per cent. of PFI projects are on balance sheet, not off balance sheet. He is trying to count every PFI commitment from now to 2030. What is more, most of the PFI commitments are in relation to maintenance and repair rather than construction programmes.
	I find it amazing that the Conservative party will not spend money on public investment and now will not spend money on the PFI. The new shadow Chancellor's policy is to cut public spending to 35 per cent. of gross domestic product—a £50 billion cut. How on earth could the Conservatives finance any hospitals or schools? There are 110 hospital developments in this country and 20,000 schools have been upgraded. We have extended PFI to transport so that we can also invest in roads and railways. If the Conservatives are now saying that they oppose public investment and PFI, they are telling the electorate that they would close down hospital projects and schools.

Barry Gardiner: May I tell my right hon. Friend about the Jews Free school in my constituency, which was completely rebuilt using the PFI process? Some £47 million of investment went into the infrastructure of one of the best schools in the country. That is exactly the sort of thing that such oppositionist policies would stop.

Gordon Brown: Eighty per cent. of all PFI projects are on time and on budget as a result of the controls that have been brought in. We have reviewed PFI projects over the past few months and decided to drop information technology from the project list because of uncertainties about IT funding. We are not doing PFI projects of less than £20 million, but I shall announce today the areas in which we will pilot further work on the private finance initiative. I find it quite amazing that the first announcement from the new Opposition Front Bench is that they no longer believe in PFI and they do not believe in public investment. How could we possibly finance the development of our public services if that policy were pursued by the Opposition?

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am going to move on to Question 2. I think that we have had a good airing of the failings of Her Majesty's Opposition, and we must get answers to the questions.

Interest Rates

Anne McIntosh: What assessment he has made of the impact on the housing market of the increase in interest rates.

Gordon Brown: Despite the recent rise in interest rates, Britain still has the lowest interest rates for 40 years and the lowest mortgage rates for 40 years. At around 5 per cent., mortgage rates contrast with British rates of about 10 per cent. or more during the last world downturn. We estimate that households pay 7.5 per cent. of their disposable income in interest payments, which is half as much as 10 years ago. At all times, our policy is to maintain economic stability.

Anne McIntosh: The Chancellor commented in his Budget speech in 1997 that stability would be the hallmark and central plank of the Government's housing market policy. How does he square that with the Governor of the Bank of England saying that we will see a return to negative equity and some correction in the housing market? Where does that put the Chancellor's central plank of stability in the housing market?

Gordon Brown: That is not what the Governor of the Bank of England said yesterday. He said that consumer spending is around trend and house price growth is moderating. He said, and he is absolutely right, that people should be vigilant about their debts. He also said that debt service payments are at a far lower level then they were 10 years ago in the last world downturn.
	The hon. Lady should look at what we have achieved in stability. Since 1979, house prices in her region rose by 9 per cent. a year. Since 1997, they have risen by 8 per cent. a year. There are 75,000 more homeowners in her region and 1 million more homeowners in the rest of the United Kingdom. The reason for that is not just economic stability, but employment growth as well. Unemployment in her constituency is 1.2 per cent.—indeed, only 11 young people are unemployed in her constituency. It is about time the Opposition recognised the obvious: that we have economic stability.

John McFall: May I ask the Chancellor about the report that he commissioned from Professor David Miles into long-term fixed-rate mortgages? Does he agree that if we move to such a system it will take the volatility out of the housing market? He is aware of the interest of the Treasury Committee in that matter. Will the report be published before the pre-Budget report so that we can discuss it with him when he comes before the Committee?

Gordon Brown: As my hon. Friend, who chairs the Treasury Committee, knows, two reports are being prepared on housing. One is on housing supply, which is being produced by Kate Barker, the former economic director of the Confederation of British Industry, now a member of the Monetary Policy Committee. At the same time, there is the report by Professor Miles on the housing market generally. We have not yet received his report, so it is too early to reach any conclusions, but interim reports will be produced at the time of the pre-Budget report. The reports cover big issues about the housing finance market and how it operates. I hope that the House will await the publication of them before drawing conclusions about the future system of housing finance.
	We will always remain vigilant about the need for stability in housing, the mortgage market and the economy in general. It would be foolish, however, not to recognise the achievements of economic stability, which have given us the lowest inflation and lowest interest rates for 40 years. At the same time, they have meant that our economy has grown while other economies have been in recession.

Vincent Cable: May I add my best wishes to the Chancellor and his family? I also extend a welcome to the new Conservative Treasury spokesman, with the personal hope that he has a happier fate than an earlier commuter from Rothschild's to the House of Commons, Norman Lamont.
	On the housing market, is not the brutal truth that with investment, exports and manufacturing output stagnating or falling, the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, against house prices that the Bank of England describes as well above equilibrium level? If the Bank of England is correct in its expectations of a market correction and rising interest rates, what action will the Chancellor take on the problem of consumer debt, which is rapidly rising, with 8 million annual visits from the bailiff?

Gordon Brown: The hon. Gentleman has been writing articles in the newspapers, as reflected in his contribution, that spread alarm, without substance, about the state of the British economy. As the Bank of England said yesterday, consumer spending is returning to trend. The Governor said:
	"there is no indication that the scale of debt problems have . . . risen markedly in the last five years."
	He also said that the fraction of household income used up in debt service is lower than it was then.
	I suggest that the hon. Gentleman look at the overall picture of the British economy. Yes, during the period of world downturn, when the rest of the European economy was not growing at all, it was necessary for both consumer spending and public investment to contribute to the growth that we have achieved in Britain; but he can see that business investment and manufacturing output are starting to return and that the export position will improve over the next period. What the Bank of England said yesterday about the prospects for growth, compared with what people said when we gave our Budget forecast in April, suggests that we have been right about the prospects for growth in the British economy, and the hon. Gentleman has been wrong.

Oliver Letwin: It is generally accepted, and I agree, that it was a good idea by the Chancellor to hand control of interest rates to the Monetary Policy Committee, and I congratulate him on that. It is clear that the MPC's decisions have a considerable effect on house prices, but does the Chancellor agree that it cannot be expected to control the level of exports, the rate of productivity growth, the level of employment or, indeed, the general balance of the economy?

Gordon Brown: That is why getting the fiscal and monetary balance right is the policy that is being pursued by the Government. I hope that in the spirit of cross-party agreement the right hon. Gentleman agrees not only that it was right to make the Bank of England independent, but that the policies we have pursued since 1997—which, uniquely among all the major industrial economies, have secured growth while other economies have experienced recession—are right.
	Let me welcome the shadow Chancellor to his new post—we will enjoy our economic debates with him. We were sorry that he mysteriously disappeared during the election campaign of 2001, so we welcome him back.

Oliver Letwin: I think that that was a yes, so perhaps the Chancellor could now tell the House what aspects of his policies, other than the MPC's interest rates, have been responsible for the fact that at a time when house prices are rising rather fast, household debt is now roughly the same size as the entire gross domestic product; that we have lost 700,000 manufacturing jobs; that we have a ballooning public sector deficit; that productivity growth has halved; and that we have the biggest traded goods deficit since 1697?

Gordon Brown: The shadow Chancellor will have to get the economy in proper perspective. He is trying to imply that the only economy that has grown consistently over the past six years is facing fundamental problems—he is absolutely wrong. The reason we have managed to grow and others have failed to do so is, first, that we decided to make the Bank of England independent; secondly, we set down monetary rules; thirdly, we went for a symmetrical inflation target, which the previous Government refused to adopt; and fourthly, we have a medium-term fiscal strategy, which has shown that we can cut debt to a sustainable level and still secure the rises in public investment that are necessary while meeting our fiscal rules. The problem, however, is that on each of those policies the Conservatives either oppose us or, alternatively, they wish to reverse the policy, as is the case with fiscal policy. The right hon. Gentleman must answer the question of how Britain could possibly have avoided a recession with 35 per cent. of GDP spent on public services.

Oliver Letwin: I am sure that the House will sympathise with the fact that the Chancellor has formed the habit of deploying a rather belligerent tone in his dealings with the Prime Minister, but I believe that our fellow citizens expect us in the Chamber to engage in a more rational discussion of issues, such as house prices and the balance of the economy, that closely affect people's lives.
	If the Chancellor does not want to deal with a string of inconvenient facts, let us focus on just one of them. When he told us that instead of setting interest rates he would focus on productivity, which he described as
	"a fundamental yardstick of economic performance",
	did he in fact mean that it was his intention to halve the rate of productivity growth, or did he make some kind of mistake?

Gordon Brown: The right hon. Gentleman is wrong and ought to be corrected. First, productivity growth is rising by 2 per cent. and more at the moment. Secondly, manufacturing productivity is rising by 5 per cent. Thirdly, we have bridged the gap with the Japanese economy, we are now catching up with the German economy, we have reduced the productivity gap with the French economy, and we are making inroads into the very large productivity gap that we inherited with the American economy.
	The right hon. Gentleman should look at the facts on productivity, and he will see that we alone of recent Governments have had productivity rising every year, and that will continue to be the case. As for house prices and the housing market, if he wants to repeat what the shadow Chief Secretary said in a speech a few days ago and somehow predict a housing shock and a threat to the stability of the economy, I must remind him that at every point in the past six years the Conservative party has predicted that there would be a recession.
	If we take house prices, then yes, they have risen as a percentage of income. If we take house prices as a percentage of wealth, that is not the case, because household wealth has risen by 50 per cent. in Britain over the past six years under a Labour Government. If we take the debt servicing payments that people have to meet for their mortgages, under the Conservative Government, at certain points, people had to pay nearly 30 per cent. as new homeowners, but under the Labour Government it is 17 per cent. In respect of the housing position, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong, and wrong again.

Private Health Care

Jim Cunningham: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had on tax incentives for private health care.

Gordon Brown: I have met BUPA and others. We estimate the cost of tax relief for private medical insurance at a billion pounds, almost all of which will go to those who are already on private medical insurance.

Jim Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer and add my congratulations to those of others in the Chamber. What is my right hon. Friend doing to provide resources to ensure that the national health service remains free at the point of need?

Gordon Brown: When we came to power, we had to take difficult decisions on the uses of public expenditure. One of the decisions that we made was to abolish tax relief on private medical insurance for over-60s. That was a difficult decision, but all the evidence showed that in the nine years in which private medical insurance existed, a billion pounds had been spent and there had been no appreciable growth in the numbers of people on private medical insurance, but that the state was subsiding people who already had such insurance in the first place.
	I cannot see how we can continue to finance both the development of the national health service and build the capacity in hospitals, with doctors and nurses being employed, and at the same time finance with a billion pounds of deadweight cost private medical insurance tax relief for people who already have such insurance. I suggest that the country has a choice—we can have a health service that is free at the point of need, where we invest in capacity, or we can spend money on private medical insurance. We will, at the same time as investing in the national health service, keep to the policy that puts the national health service, and not private medicine, first in this respect.

Tim Boswell: Since the Chancellor announced the decision in 1997 to withdraw tax relief for older people in respect of private health insurance, can he tell the House how many older people have come off such insurance and what the costs to the NHS in current and capital terms have been in providing for those people in the public sector?

Gordon Brown: I will write to the hon. Gentleman with the figures. There was no appreciable growth in the numbers of people who took out private medical insurance when the tax relief was in place. I may say that the former Chancellor, Lord Lawson, said that the relief was not good value for money and merely meant health service inflation. He was opposed to it all along, as those on the Conservative Front Bench should be.

Barnett Formula

Joyce Quin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received about the operation of the Barnett formula.

Paul Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor receives periodic representations about the operation of the Barnett formula. The Government have no plans to change the formula.

Joyce Quin: My right hon. Friend will no doubt have seen the recent report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister that recommended a review of the formula. The way in which the formula operates is politically indefensible on the doorsteps of voters in north-east England. Given that the formula is named after a former Labour Chief Secretary, will he not take the opportunity to introduce a new Boateng formula that is a great deal fairer to the nations and regions of the United Kingdom as a whole?

Paul Boateng: I must resist that temptation, although I appreciate the kind thought. I know that my right hon. Friend takes a great interest in this matter. However, while I respect her view and that of the Select Committee, I do not share her analysis. The Barnett formula is transparent and well tried. There is no consensus about alternative funding arrangements, and existing arrangements have delivered to the north-east the second highest level of identifiable public spending in England. I think that that is something to be welcomed and appreciated by all.

Pete Wishart: Has the Chief Secretary had an opportunity to look at the latest edition of the Holyrood magazine? If he has done so, he will have found that the Secretary of State for Scotland has conceded that the Barnett formula is indeed a convergence formula. Does he agree with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and does he believe that the best way of ending this futile debate about the formula would be to give the Scottish Parliament responsibility for collecting its own expenditure and to make it fully accountable for how it is spent?

Paul Boateng: I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman, who knows that examination of the figures shows that Scotland has done rather well out of the Barnett formula, as spending is 20 per cent. higher in Scotland. The reality is that the formula provides Scotland with a population-based share of comparable English increases. That can hardly be regarded as unfair. I would have thought that he would welcome that on behalf of his constituents.

Lindsay Hoyle: Obviously, the north-east would welcome a change in the Barnett formula, but may I reassure my right hon. Friend that in the north-west we would benefit simply from its extension to cover both the north-west and north-east, so that we not only reap the same benefits, but do not end up with top-up fees?

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend is always a reassuring figure, but there is normally a sting in the tail, as on this occasion. I fear that I must resist his blandishments, too. The Barnett formula is delivering to all the regions and to the kingdom. If Conservative Members have any alternative—the Letwin-Flight formula, perhaps—we should hear about it, because it would be about slash and burn and cuts, cuts, cuts; and we are not having that.

Residential Property (Taxation)

Andrew Rosindell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received on his policies on taxation in relation to residential property.

John Healey: As with all tax issues, the Government consider representations that are received as part of the normal Budget process.

Andrew Rosindell: Does the Minister understand that since this Government came to power in 1997, their polices have been absolutely devastating for the hard-pressed homeowners of this country, with a 60 per cent. average increase in council tax and a devastating increase in stamp duty? When will the Government introduce policies that encourage, rather than discourage, home owning?

John Healey: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said, there are 1 million more homeowners in the United Kingdom since this Government came to power in 1997.

Brian Iddon: Bearing in mind the Government's energy efficiency commitment, will my hon. Friend look again at the charging of VAT on refurbishing older properties and on do-it-yourself energy-saving products?

John Healey: My hon. Friend is a passionate and long-standing advocate of energy efficiency measures, and he will be aware that we are arguing with the Commission and our partners in the European Union for greater freedom to allow a reduced rate of VAT on energy-saving materials that people use on a DIY basis. We are still constrained by European rules that prevent some of the measures that my hon. Friend would like.

Andrew Tyrie: Over the past five years, the Government have clobbered homeowners with massive increases in stamp duty that have resulted in a nearly fivefold increase in the total yield to more than £3.5 billion a year and hit many people's main source of saving. A few weeks ago, the Government ruled out taxing capital gains on first homes—a seemingly enormous pledge that I welcome. Will they now rule out further increases in stamp duty, at least for the forthcoming Budget?

John Healey: I sometimes wonder whether Conservative Members are living in the real world. As I said to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell), the Chancellor considers representations and makes decisions on tax as part of the Budget process. As for tax rises—[Interruption.] The shadow Chancellor is shouting "60". The Tories treat this like a maths test for a seven-year-old. They go through our Budget documents looking for the plus signs and add them up, but they do not take into account the cuts in income tax, the pension credit, the working families tax credit or the child tax credit. The personal tax and benefit changes that have been made since 1997 have had a direct impact on householders, who are, on average, £775 a year better off: the poorest and those with children are better off still.

John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend agree that council tax is fundamentally a regressive form of taxation because it was introduced by the Tories to replace Mrs. Thatcher's poll tax and is closely related to it? Will my hon. Friend the Minister consider making it more closely related to ability to pay, perhaps by extending the banding so that wealthier people in wealthier areas pay proportionately more?

John Healey: Questions about council tax bands and the ratios between them will form part of the analysis and decision making in the revaluation of council taxes that starts in 2005 and will affect bills from 2007.
	I emphasise to my hon. Friend and Conservative Members that the average council tax per dwelling this year under Labour councils is £818, whereas under Liberal Democrat councils, it is £934 and £1,008 under Tory councils.

Euro Roadshow

George Osborne: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many euro roadshow events he has attended in the past month.

Ruth Kelly: Ministers have held a variety of meetings to discuss the euro in the past month. In addition, Treasury officials have held more than 150 meetings with opinion formers in Britain and Europe since the Chancellor's statement on 9 June.

George Osborne: I gather from the Financial Secretary's answer that the Chancellor attended no roadshow events in the past month, unless one includes the radio interviews that he did last week. That is slightly surprising because the deal that he stitched up with the Prime Minister was that he kept the pound and the Prime Minister launched a roadshow. Where is it? Why does not the Financial Secretary simply admit what we all know—that the roadshow does not exist?

Ruth Kelly: I was going to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his appointment to the Front Bench. However, given his preoccupation with Ministers' diaries and who answers the question rather than the substance of the issue, perhaps he has already decided that he prefers to answer questions from the Back Benches.
	Perhaps I can clarify a couple of points. Ministers continued to meet last month. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary addressed a meeting in Scotland and I filled in for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, who was taking paternity leave, at a meeting in London. As the hon. Gentleman knows, Treasury officials have been deeply engaged in continuing discussions with stakeholders in the past month as in previous months.

Roger Casale: I invite the Financial Secretary to meet my constituents who have shown since at least May 1997 that it is possible to hold an open, balanced and rational debate about the euro and Britain's membership of the European Union. When she does that, will she remind them that a benefit of joining the euro would be the ability to lock in the economic stability that a Labour Government have created in this country and that entry would almost eliminate the risk of a return to the 15 per cent. interest rates that pertained when the Conservative party was in power?

Ruth Kelly: I know that my hon. Friend takes a great interest in those matters and of course I would be willing to meet his constituents. We have to put the national economic interest first—that is why we set up the five-test procedure. We shall review that at the appropriate time in the Budget.

Business Taxation

Bob Spink: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has for changes in the taxation of business.

Dawn Primarolo: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor is considering representations on business tax, including corporation tax, and will make his pre-Budget statement in due course.

Bob Spink: Did the right hon. Lady read the CBI's comments about the 19 new business taxes in the previous Parliament and the decision to drive up national insurance contributions, which destroy business competitiveness and productivity? Last year, business investment fell by more than at any other time in the past decade. Will she undertake not to introduce the Government's proposed new taxes on businesses?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is fully aware of all the international comparisons with tax levels for businesses in the United Kingdom. He also knows that the Government have undertaken huge reform of the corporate tax regime to support businesses through provisions on intellectual property rights, the research and development tax credit and intangible assets as well as through lowering corporation tax for large and small companies. All the comparisons show that the United Kingdom is the best place in which to do business. Digby Jones, director general of the CBI, echoed that when he said:
	"I would much rather be doing business in Britain than anywhere else in Europe . . . We are still the most successful economy in Europe."
	That shows that the Government's policies are correct.

Andrew Miller: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to encourage the vehicle industry to invest in future technologies, some of which have a long gestation period? Does she also agree that, as part of that, it is important that we show our commitment by continuing to give support to interim technologies?

Dawn Primarolo: I am sure that my hon. Friend is fully aware of the importance of the research and development tax credit for innovation in any industry, and that its extension to the small and medium-sized enterprises has been crucial in ensuring that those ideas continue to be funded and developed. We keep the R and D tax credit continually under review, and the definition of it has reduced the maximum expenditure necessary to qualify for that tax credit. I will continue to look closely at its operation, to ensure that industry is rewarded for innovation and development and that the tax system encourages that.

David Ruffley: Is the Minister aware that Digby Jones also said recently:
	"Ministers cannot keep siphoning off company funds without damaging investment, productivity and competitiveness. That will reduce the ability for the government to invest in public services—the money will simply not be there."?
	Which part of that statement does the Minister not understand?

Dawn Primarolo: We are not siphoning off funds, as the hon. Gentleman puts it. [Hon. Members: "It was Digby Jones."] The Government, in whose consultations Digby Jones is an active participant, want to reform the tax system to support growth, encourage stability, create investment and jobs, allow our businesses to grow and maintain the competitiveness of the British economy. All those things are being done, with stability at the heart of them, and Digby Jones agrees with that.

World Debt

Stephen Hesford: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress the G7 Finance Ministers are making in tackling world debt.

Gordon Brown: Twenty-seven countries are receiving debt relief that will be worth $70 billion. Of the other 10 and more that are eligible, most are in conflict.

Stephen Hesford: Given the relative success of the debt relief talks, and the relative failure of the World Trade Organisation negotiations at Cancun, can my right hon. Friend see any possibility of convergence of the twin-track talks in order to benefit post-Cancun negotiations?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know takes an interest in these matters. He is absolutely right: the prospects of the developing countries depend not only on debt relief and adequate aid but on their ability to participate in the global economy. What comes out of the world trade talks is therefore crucial to their future. When we met at the International Monetary Fund and World Bank meetings in Dubai a few weeks ago, it was agreed that we should try to do everything that we could to remove the barriers to the resumption of trade talks. That will require Europe to make a move forward on the competition and investment clauses that were preventing agreement and progress. It will also require countries to look very carefully at their proposals on agriculture. I hope to meet the head of the WTO, Dr. Supachai, very soon to discuss what other things can be done by Governments in Europe and elsewhere to help to progress the talks forward, but I agree with my hon. Friend that we must ensure that they resume.

Martin Smyth: I welcome the Chancellor's response. Could he tell us to what extent some of the debt has not been dealt with because of the recalcitrance of the Governments in certain countries about coming up to standard? Does he agree that, at a time when many people live in poverty even in the developed countries, we should not forget that those in the developing countries are much worse off?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I know how much he does in Africa, working with the churches to help countries there to solve some of the problems that are preventing them from delivering decent health and education services to their people. The main reason debt relief has not progressed beyond the 27 countries is that most of the countries that would be eligible are in conflict, about to come out of conflict, or have made a decision to come out of conflict but not yet achieved it. I would bring debt relief up to $100 billion, which was our target, but we cannot sustainably give debt relief at a time when we have no clue as to how those resources would be used.
	If countries come out of conflict, we are prepared to work with them on a restructuring plan so that they can rebuild their infrastructure and, at the same time, get rid of their debts. Conflict is the major barrier to debt relief. Of course we require transparency, and corruption in countries that are eligible for debt relief is a major issue. That is why, at all the recent meetings of the World Bank and the IMF, the emphasis has been on developing countries pursuing an anti-corruption, pro-stability policy to enable them properly to participate in the world economy.

Kelvin Hopkins: One way in which the developed world causes debt in the third world is by exporting heavily subsidised agricultural products, which devastates farming in those countries. Would it not be a good idea to stop exporting surpluses, start buying more of those countries' food, and begin to seek the abolition of the common agricultural policy?

Gordon Brown: Agricultural issues are complex, but the basic problem is that agricultural protectionism cannot continue if the countries of which my hon. Friend speaks are to develop. That is why it is incumbent on the European Union and the American Government to make progress by liberalising agriculture and removing what are, in effect, subsidies worth $350 billion—seven times the amount given to the poorest countries in development aid.
	My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We need to push further in the agriculture talks. Agricultural protectionism serves the poorest countries badly, as well as being bad for the environment and bad in other ways. We also need to press on with the international finance facility plan to meet the millennium development goals. In return for countries' opening up to investment and pursuing stability policies, we must help them to deal with major health and education problems.

Child Trust Funds

Meg Munn: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether building societies and other financial mutual organisations will be providers for the new child trust funds.

Ruth Kelly: Any firm with a relevant Financial Services Authority authorisation will be able to enter the market subject to meeting the requirements of the child trust fund regulations. We expect a wide range of providers to offer accounts.

Meg Munn: When setting any price cap for child trust funds, will the Government take account of the cost of administering savings for children and the need to raise awareness of the importance of saving? In particular, will they encourage providers to ensure that all families, particularly those with low incomes, benefit from the opportunity to save for their children?

Ruth Kelly: I agree with my hon. Friend. When I decided to allow all FSA-authorised firms to enter the market, I paid careful attention to the impact on financial mutuals and building societies and decided to allow them to participate as well.
	My hon. Friend is right to mention the price cap. In view of the factors she cites, I have commissioned independent research from Deloitte Touche on the impact of the cap and its interaction with the target market. I shall publish it in due course.

David Laws: How much consultation is going on with other Departments? Is it true that the Home Secretary is even less enthusiastic about the Chancellor's proposals than the Chancellor is about his proposals for identity cards?

Ruth Kelly: I think the hon. Gentleman has completely misinterpreted the Home Secretary's position. He is a firm advocate of child trust funds. Indeed, I shared a platform with him in Downing street to discuss the merits of the proposal. We have a once-in-a-generation chance to open up opportunities for poor children as well as those from wealthier backgrounds.

Nigel Beard: Would my hon. Friend consider allowing parents who are eligible for the savings gateway to pay top-up amounts into the trust funds on the same terms?

Ruth Kelly: We have considered how to maximise the benefits for children from poorer families. We have decided both to make the policy universal—every child born after a certain date will have access to an endowment—and to concentrate Government resources on those who need them most. We have introduced a two-level endowment, which will apply at birth and when the child reaches the age of seven. Up to 40 per cent. of children will be able to benefit.

Tim Loughton: Can the Minister answer a question that seems to be causing some confusion among her officials? Will the trust funds be taken into account in the calculation of benefits, and will they affect those benefits?

Ruth Kelly: We have made it absolutely clear that in the assessment of family benefits for the purpose of calculation, child trust funds will be disallowed.

Sustainable Development

Colin Challen: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions have been held with Departments regarding their sustainable development objectives in the forthcoming comprehensive spending round.

John Healey: Departments will be required to consider sustainable development as part of the 2004 spending review process, as they were in 2002.

Colin Challen: I am sure that my hon. Friend will study very carefully the Environmental Audit Committee report entitled "Greening Government", which was published earlier today. One of its key observations is that the public service agreements in Departments other than the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have hardly any environmentally related targets at all. So will my hon. Friend and the Treasury put pressure on other Departments to increase the number of such targets in the next comprehensive spending review?

John Healey: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's work on the Environmental Audit Committee, and to the work of the Committee itself. I should point out that we already have 14 departmental PSAs, deriving from the 2002 spending review, that incorporate sustainable development. But I shall indeed study his Committee's report carefully, and I will consider the case that he makes about targets. I shall of course then respond to the Committee, in full, in the normal way.

World Debt

Valerie Davey: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions he has had with African Finance Ministers on debt and the millennium development targets.

Gordon Brown: To meet the millennium development goals, which include primary education for all by 2015 and the halving of poverty, we propose, in addition to the debt relief that we have given, the creation of an international finance facility that will provide $50 billion in additional finance per year. I am grateful to all parties in this House for their support for this proposal.

Valerie Davey: Many of my constituents especially value my right hon. Friend's commitment to this aspect of his work. Will he further explain the extent of the Government's support for development projects in Africa?

Gordon Brown: My hon. Friend takes a very keen interest in this issue and I thank her for that. We will raise aid to Africa to £1 billion a year, and that will be achieved before completion of this spending review, as the International Development Secretary announced last week. So more of the aid money that is being raised anyway is going to Africa, and more is going to anti-poverty programmes such as tackling illiteracy and tackling ill health. I believe that the partnership for Africa initiative is the right way forward, whereby, in return for African countries tackling corruption, pursuing policies for stability and opening up to investment, we provide the resources to enable them to tackle their problems. At the moment, the chances of meeting the millennium development goals are slim, unless we get the additional finance that we are proposing, through the international finance facility. So I hope that not only politicians but the churches, non-governmental organisations and others interested in the future of Africa will look at this proposal very carefully.

Richard Ottaway: Following on from that point, if I may, I shall paraphrase one of the millennium goals, which is to stabilise world population growth by choice. The Chancellor will be well aware that the funding levels were agreed at the Cairo international conference on population action, in 1994. In the eyes of many, insufficient funding is going into population programmes; what is more, the question arises of whether it is going to the right agencies. Will the Chancellor undertake to review this matter, so that the millennium goals can be achieved?

Gordon Brown: This is not strictly a matter for the Treasury, as the hon. Gentleman knows, but I will report what he says to the International Development Secretary, who speaks for us on these matters. But whichever way he looks at it, the hon. Gentleman must know that population is going to rise. It is our duty to make sure that there is growth in African countries and in other developing countries by working with them to achieve the conditions for that growth. Such conditions include tackling corruption, ensuring macro-economic stability, and opening up to trade and investment. That is what the Monterrey consensus was all about, but it will be achieved through partnership. In return, we must help those countries to solve the problems of HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria; indeed, 2 million people a year are dying from tuberculosis, and 1 million are dying from malaria.
	Such problems are soluble, but those countries need the capacity to build health care systems, and in the end, they need the money that only the richest countries can provide at this stage. That is why the international finance facility—supported enthusiastically, I hope, on both sides of this House—can be useful not only if we can persuade other countries around the world to adopt it, but if we can work with Africa to implement it.

Lawrie Quinn: On my right hon. Friend's discussions with African Finance Ministers, what is his assessment of the priority that they are giving to the need to ensure that every child in Africa gets at least primary-level education?

Gordon Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has taken a huge interest in these matters. I met many African Finance Ministers only a few weeks ago under the chairmanship of the French Finance Minister, Mr. Mer. There will also be a meeting of African Finance Ministers in Paris in February to discuss the international finance facility. The priority attached to primary education is shown by the fact that 65 per cent. of the money released from debt relief is going into education and health. Uganda, for example, has made primary education free, which has increased enrolment by more than 50 per cent. in recent years. There are 120 million children around the world who do not go to school, but that problem can be overcome with an investment of about $10 billion a year, which is not a huge sum if the international community acts together. I believe that we should be prepared to make that finance available.

Nicholas Winterton: This is a very important question, and I am delighted that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is answering it. Could he advise the House and me what particular discussions he has had with African Ministers about the deteriorating and highly serious problem in Zimbabwe, not least because it is currently excluded from the Commonwealth? Dreadful problems are occurring in that country, and debt is rising. Could he tell the House what we are seeking to do to help the hard-pressed people of Zimbabwe?

Gordon Brown: I discuss that matter regularly with Finance Ministers around Africa, but the hon. Gentleman will understand that the precise policies pursued by the Government are a matter for the Foreign Secretary, who will discuss these matters with the rest of the Commonwealth very soon. I met the South African Finance Minister only a few weeks ago and that subject was on the agenda. One significant problem is that HIV/AIDS affects the whole of the southern part of Africa—24 million people in Africa either are infected or are likely to be infected. Some initiatives, including one through the WTO, have been taken on pharmaceuticals, and have proved beneficial. The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a long way to go, and we need all-party co-operation here and the help of other countries so that we can increase the resources and the capacity of health care systems to cope.

World Bank/IMF

Ann McKechin: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on new agreements arising from the annual World Bank and International Monetary Fund meetings to allow greater diversity and representation of poor countries on the boards of (a) the World Bank and (b) the IMF.

Paul Boateng: The Government welcome recent developments at the Dubai annual meetings, when Ministers committed themselves to improve the capacity of developing country representatives and asked the World Bank and the IMF to look further at those countries' level of representation within those institutions.

Ann McKechin: I thank my right hon. Friend for his reply. However, does he agree that, if the IMF and World Bank are to take decisions that best reflect the development needs of the world's poorest nations, there is a need for a better balance between richer and poorer nations in the voting structure? The WTO, for example, allows for equal votes, and the voice of the developing nations is now being heard loud and clear.

Paul Boateng: My hon. Friend, who takes a close interest in these matters, makes a very fair point about the balance of representation. That is why we are working to achieve a consensus in that regard, building on the pledge in our White Paper of 2000 and on the progress made at Monterrey. Building consensus is not easy, but we believe that a 25th seat on the IMF and the World Bank's board for sub-Saharan Africa is an option that ought to be explored and given serious consideration. We are working hard to that end.

John Battle: My right hon. Friend will know that at the present rate of international aid, six out of eight of the millennium development goals are unlikely to be met until half way through the next century. What conversations have taken place at the IMF and World Bank to give support to the Chancellor's initiative for an international finance facility, which would boost immediate assistance and help to get those targets back on track?

Paul Boateng: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor works closely with others on those issues, not least with the faith communities, which have a crucial role to play. That is why the recently announced support of the Vatican and His Holiness for the IFF was a particular help in taking that agenda forward. The issue was discussed recently with leaders of the World Bank and the IMF in Madrid. As a result of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's initiative, the World Bank and the IMF are carrying out studies and we are hopeful of increasing recognition on the part of donor nations that we have to do more and that the IFF is our best hope of achieving that. The example that this House sets of genuine bipartisan support for that mechanism is one that other nations, especially donor nations, might well follow.

Tam Dalyell: Treasury Ministers have an outstanding record in helping developing countries, but is that record being damaged in any way by the increasing commitments to Iraq and, in particular, are the reports—

Mr. Speaker: Order. My apologies for interrupting, but we have arrived at question 15. The hon. Gentleman should ask the Minister for the reply to that question.

Paul Boateng: I take the point that the Father of the House makes and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. On the Order Paper, we have reached question 15. Question 14 has been withdrawn.

Iraq

Tam Dalyell: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his Answer of 30th October to the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), Official Report, column 311W, on Iraq, when he expects to be able to provide the total cost of the military campaign in Iraq.

Paul Boateng: The Chancellor announced in the Budget that £3 billion has been set aside to cover the cost of operations in Iraq. It would be premature to anticipate the total cost of the military operations at this time.

Tam Dalyell: Is it true that the commitment to the Amazon rainforest and other developing country commitments have been seriously damaged by an increasing commitment to the finances for Iraq?

Paul Boateng: No, the project that we are funding will be completed, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made clear. No announcements that we have made in relation to Iraq, and the funding of operations there, will affect the UK's firm commitment to increase aid in poor countries. That we are determined to do and are doing. I welcome the support of the Father of the House for that objective.

Business of the House

Oliver Heald: Will the Leader of the House please give us the business for next week?

Peter Hain: The business for next week will be as follows:
	Monday 17 November—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Courts Bill [Lords], followed by money resolution relating to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill, followed, if necessary, by further Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
	Tuesday 18 November—Consideration of Lords amendments, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill, followed, if necessary, by further consideration of Lords amendments.
	Wednesday 19 November—Consideration of Lords amendments. Consideration of Lords amendments to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, followed, if necessary, by further consideration of Lords amendments.
	Thursday 20 November—Consideration of Lords amendments.
	The House will be prorogued when Royal Assent to all Acts has been signified.
	The House may like to be reminded that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has just announced that the pre-Budget report will be on Wednesday 10 December.

Oliver Heald: May I begin by paying a warm tribute to my predecessor? [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] Apparently, several other right hon. and hon. Members wish to join in that tribute. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) brought his own inimitable style to these occasions. He apologises for not being here today, but he is at another parliamentary occasion. However, he promises that he will be back on these occasions, week after week. I cannot promise that I will tease the Leader of the House as much as my right hon. Friend did, but I will try to hold the right hon. Gentleman just as firmly to account.
	Last week, the Leader of the House was asked whether arrangements could be made for the President of the United States to address both Houses of Parliament. Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the House has the right to expect such an event, and will he explain what is being done about that?
	On a more sombre note, the right hon. Gentleman will have seen the widespread reports about the handling of child abuse allegations in Islington and, more particularly, the insulting and demeaning way in which victims have been treated. May we have an urgent debate on that vital issue?
	The local government settlement is a matter of great concern among hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially following the swingeing increases in council taxes that were forced on local authorities last year. The right hon. Gentleman will know that the Local Government Association has already warned that next year there will be increases of more than £100 per home. Will he tell the House, therefore, whether that statement will be given next Tuesday, so that hon. Members may prepare? Will he accept a plea from me that it should not be given on Wednesday, when the business of the House will be taken up with contentious and difficult matters?
	Last week, workers who had lost their pensions and whose employers are insolvent held a meeting at the House. It was organised on an all-party basis, and workers, including workers from the former Allied Steel and Wire in Cardiff, gave moving accounts of how they had lost their life savings. On that occasion, the Minister for Pensions said that he was considering the matter. May we have a statement and a debate in Government time on what the Government are prepared to do to help them?
	Finally, I want to ask about the Government's controversial identification card scheme—not the one for people, but the one for horses and donkeys. The Horse Passports (England) regulations were laid on 4 November, and are due to come into force on 30 November. I understand that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments has not been able to consider the regulations. What advice does the Leader of the House have for Britain's horse and donkey owners? Should they trot off to obtain a passport, or should they rein back and await further news? I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman's predecessor would have been extremely concerned about the problem.

Peter Hain: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, I understand that the problem is that we cannot get horses into photo booths.
	I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new post. I shall not offer him my full support, however, as I did that last week to his predecessor and it proved fatal. Even so, I join the hon. Gentleman in paying a warm tribute to his predecessor, who is a real treasure in the House of Commons. I look forward to him terrorising me from the Back Benches, just as he did from the Front Bench.
	I should note that, these days, it is very hard not to be a Front Bencher in the Conservative parliamentary party. The sketch writer for The Guardian, Simon Hoggart, wrote earlier this week:
	"If you cut the ex-leaders, the very old and the certifiably insane, you need to have something startlingly wrong with you not be a Tory frontbencher these days."
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked some specific questions. He pointed out, rightly, that the question of President Bush's very important visit has been raised before. I am not in a position to say whether the President will address both Houses. That is a matter for the palace, and the question of security must be considered, as the hon. Gentleman will understand. However, the day before yesterday was 11 November—Remembrance day. We must remember that America, one of our closest allies, stood solidly by us when this country faced one of its darkest hours in the fight against the Nazis. If it had not done so, it is possible that we in the House of Commons would not enjoy our current freedom. That is the context in which we should greet the state visit by the President of the United States.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire also asked about the difficulties of child abuse in Islington many years ago. Under the Minister for Children, in the past few months the Government have put together a policy that is the most rigorous and radical protection of children's rights that any Government of this country have ever devised. We intend to take that important policy forward.
	The intention is that a statement on local authority settlements will be made next Wednesday. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire will understand that all days are potentially busy at this especially fraught time of year, shortly before prorogation. Therefore, I do not accept that it would be better to have the statement on one day or another.
	The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire is right that the question of pensions and insolvencies is very serious. I know, from my personal knowledge as Secretary of State for Wales, that the plight of the ASW workers in Cardiff is very serious. The Government want to offer what help we can, and we are introducing new legislation to that end on the back of the pensions Green Paper. I hope that the proposals will have the support of the Conservative Opposition.
	As the hon. Gentleman knows, earlier this week the Home Secretary made a statement on the general question of identity cards.

Paul Tyler: I warmly welcome the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) to his new post. There are now so many part-time spokesmen in the Conservative shadow Cabinet, but I notice that he is not addressing his questions to the part-time Leader of the House any more. That is perhaps a relief to the Leader of the House.
	What is the position on the House of Lords reform? Last Friday the Secretary of State for Health announced that the House of Lords was not entitled to amend the foundation hospitals Bill because its Members were "unelected". When and how do the Government propose to redress that defect? Does the Leader of the House recognise that, since it was not a manifesto commitment, nobody has been elected to support those proposals in either House?
	Will the right hon. Gentleman elaborate on the exchange of correspondence that was published yesterday between the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham), the Chairman of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform? I am sure that the Leader of the House has taken a close interest in the correspondence, and will have noted that the Secretary of State told the Committee that it could now consider not just the proposals made by the Government, including those in the consultation paper of 18 September, but any other proposals that it deems appropriate to the reform of the House of Lords. When will that take place? When will there be an opportunity for the House to discuss a motion on the remit of that Committee, if it is to continue? Is that the vote that, on 29 October, the Prime Minister referred to as a free vote on both sides of the House, or is the free vote for some other purpose? Will it be, for example, on the Second Reading of the Bill that the Government propose to introduce? When will there be an open debate on an amendable motion and a free vote on the whole subject to which the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor referred?
	The Extradition Bill will come before us in a few minutes' time. Is the Leader of the House aware that the amendments have only just arrived in the Vote Office? These circumstances arise every year and the Leader of the House referred to them just now. At this time of the Session, we are given so many amendments to consider in such a short time that the business of the House is indigestible. Will he give that consideration and recognise before this situation arises next year that there must be a review of the amount of legislation that is pushed through at this time of the year?

Peter Hain: I will certainly consider the hon. Gentleman's last point. Obviously, the House wants an opportunity to look at all amendments carefully and give them proper scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny helps generally.
	On House of Lords reform, I voted, possibly with the hon. Gentleman, for a fully elected second chamber. He will have to wait with bated breath to see what may be in the Queen's Speech in that respect. I will certainly consider the correspondence issue carefully.
	The hon. Gentleman should not misinterpret what the Prime Minister said about a free vote. He did not say that there would be a free vote on any forthcoming legislation to abolish the right of the hereditaries to vote in the House of Lords; he was referring to the free vote that took place earlier this year. As the hon. Gentleman knows, to my regret, there was no conclusive outcome. In those circumstances, another free vote so soon afterwards would not be profitable.

Harry Barnes: When people have a stroke, not everyone is fortunate enough to be taken by the Speaker and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to the nearest accident and emergency unit to be treated in a specialist unit. Is my right hon. Friend aware that today the Stroke Association has launched a campaign, "Why are we Waiting?" to highlight the need for specialist stroke units to be added to hospitals throughout the country? The Under-Secretary of State for Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Welwyn Hatfield (Miss Johnson), claims that next year 94 per cent. of hospitals will have stroke units, but the Stroke Association disputes that. It feels that the Government are not meeting their national service framework provision for all people. This would be a good topic to debate, when we could sort out the statistics and discover whether the Department of Health is spinning this matter too far.

Peter Hain: I join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Stroke Association on its commendable and important work. I am grateful to him for raising the matter. As he implied, the Under-Secretary said recently:
	"We take services for stroke patients very seriously and are working hard to improve the care patients receive in hospital . . . By April next year, 171 out of 181 hospitals will be providing specialist stroke services with a team of dedicated health professionals in place with expertise in this area."

Andrew MacKay: Why is the Minister for Children not coming to the House next week to make a statement, in the light of the serious letter that she wrote to Gavyn Davies, the chairman of the BBC, in which she blackened a courageous whistleblower who brought to light the dreadful cases of child abuse in Islington that she so ignored when she was its leader?

Peter Hain: I was expecting the right hon. Gentleman to raise that question, as he has pursued it tirelessly, week after week after week. What it cannot be allowed to obscure, however, is the Government's excellent record in providing additional rights, extra protection and additional investment for children: for example, the sure start programme, which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children was instrumental in bringing forward; significant rises in child benefit; successful literacy and numeracy strategies; and the "Every Child Matters" Green Paper, in the launch of which my right hon. Friend was involved. That is the important policy agenda. The Government's record on a joined-up children's policy is better than that of any of our predecessors.

Louise Ellman: The Leader of the House may be aware that in Liverpool this morning the chief constable of Sussex made a public apology to my constituents, the Ashley family, concerning the killing of James Ashley five years ago during a bungled police raid. Will the Leader of the House ensure that both the Wilding and Hoddinot reports on that matter are given full public scrutiny and exposure? Will he take all possible steps to ensure that such an incident never happens again and that the subsequent attempts to cover it up and to discredit the people involved can never happen in future?

Peter Hain: I welcome my hon. Friend's question. A repeat of such a dreadful tragedy should never be allowed. I commend the chief constable for taking that unusual initiative and travelling that distance to try at least to put the matter to rest and to assure the family that the police service is genuinely apologetic.

Michael Jack: This week, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs organised a presentation and a press conference to launch Lord Haskins' report proposing ideas for the most fundamental reorganisation of rural services for many years. In that context, the House was ignored. Will the Leader of the House look at the situation again and ensure that the Secretary of State comes to the House to make a statement, or that there is a debate in Government time, to enable all Members with an interest in the delivery of rural services to probe and evaluate those fundamental proposals from Lord Haskins?

Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is always accountable to the House and would not want in any way to divert attention from or hide important reports such as that of Lord Haskins. On the contrary, she has already said that she wants to hold a debate when the Government have had time to consider the report. However, I acknowledge the right hon. Gentleman's expertise and interest in the matter, as, I am sure, will my right hon. Friend.

Dennis Skinner: In the interests of balance, will the Leader of the House accept that not everybody in the House wants George Bush to address the Houses of Parliament? In fact, a considerable number of us—many are not in the Chamber at present—would be glad if he was not coming at all. Will the Leader of the House convey to the powers that be at the White House, and at the palace if necessary, that it would be in Bush's interests not to turn up? There are going to be some demonstrations, and that will not go down well at the White House and the Pentagon. Finally, what is the point of it, because he will not get any decent photo opportunities at the palace at present?

Peter Hain: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, very much indeed for that question.

Andrew Mitchell: Answer it then.

Peter Hain: Indeed—I am about to do so.
	The state visit has been long arranged. The President of the United States is the president of an important ally, and his visit should be treated properly in that context. Of course, as my hon. Friend implies, people have the right to exercise their freedom to demonstrate peacefully. He will also understand that, in view of regular terrorist threats over the past few years, as well as actual terrorist attacks, the security around the visit is a very important matter, and I am sure that he will want to take that into account.

Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House, as a Cabinet Minister, chairs an important Select Committee: the Modernisation Committee. I—one of the 49 per cent. of the main Opposition party who are not members of a shadow team—chair the Procedure Committee. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will indicate why he believes that that is so.
	What thought is the right hon. Gentleman giving to the revised hours of the House, because he is aware that important Select Committees are finding it difficult to meet when the House is not meeting or when important debates are taking place in the Chamber? I refer particularly to the fact that both the Procedure Committee and the Modernisation Committee meet on the same afternoon. Is it not possible to make a better arrangement, whereby hon. Members who are interested in what goes on in the Chamber can also fully participate in the important work of Select Committees?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman does important work on behalf of the Procedure Committee. I well understand his point and I have it in mind to discuss it with him and other hon. Members.
	I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is not on the Front Bench, because he is most certainly not one of those whom The Guardian reported as being certifiably insane. On the contrary, he ought to be a rising star in the Conservative party, and his long experience on the Back Benches would add extra weight and extra credibility, which is badly needed on the new Tory Front Bench.

Keith Vaz: May we have an urgent debate on the availability on the national health service of the Prevenar vaccine, which, as my right hon. Friend will know, is used to treat pneumococcal meningitis in children? I have been sent details of case of a two-year-old child who died because he did not receive the vaccine, which is readily available in America and Europe, but not in this country. May we have an urgent debate on this matter so that we can put that right?

Peter Hain: That is obviously a very serious incident, and I understand why my hon. Friend raises it. I am sure that those responsible in the Government will want to take careful account of it, particularly as he raises it on the Floor of the House.

Adrian Flook: The Leader of the House may not be aware of the impending havoc in university admissions that is forecast for October 2005 because of the Government's proposals to introduce top-up fees. Many current year 12 or lower sixth form students who may have been expected to finish their A-levels in June 2005 and take a gap year will not take that gap year, which will create a logjam in October 2005. The Government have written to me saying that they have no plan to introduce any special arrangement to resolve that problem. Does he not think that the House should debate the Government's intransigence on this matter?

Peter Hain: The Secretary of State for Education and Skills is well aware of the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises, but may I ask whether he supports the policy, advocated by those on the Conservative Front Bench, of depriving up to 100,000 students of the chance to get a university education?

Adrian Flook: indicated assent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman does support that policy, so he would deprive many potential students in his and every other constituency of the chance to go to university. That is the issue that he should be concerned about, and he should back the Government's policy of expanding university education and preventing universities from getting into precisely the kind of financial mess that they were in when we inherited our dreadful legacy in 1997.

Jim Knight: The Leader of the House will be aware that Royal Mail announced today that it was back in profit, which is good news, but that is an unfortunate coincidence for me as it coincides with a notice from Royal Mail saying that seven of the 16 post offices in Weymouth are due for closure. Will the Leader of the House agree to allow us to debate the closure of sub-post offices in areas such as mine, especially as it appears that sub-postmasters and sub-postmistresses have already been asked to sign a contract agreeing to the closures even before the consultation has begun? All hon. Members are concerned about the elderly, the infirm and the immobile being able to gain access to local post offices when so many are closing in places such as Weymouth.

Peter Hain: I very much sympathise with my hon. Friend's expression of concern. If those closures occur in his constituency, it would undoubtedly be a real problem, not just for him and the House, but for his constituents. As I have said before, there has been a long-term trend under the previous Government and under us of local post offices being unable to survive in today's consumer climate, in which people make different choices. I very much regret that because, for example, in my own village, Resolven in the Neath valley, we have a local post office that is a centre of the community. It is important that as many local post offices as possible survive, and the Government are working to achieve that.

Andrew Mitchell: Following the disgraceful but not untypical failure of the Prime Minister yesterday to answer questions about the cost of running the Government and the recently published figures that show that the cost of running government has increased by a massive 50 per cent. since 1997, may we have a whole-day debate in Government time that draws on past, as well as present, examples of waste and inefficiencies under Labour Governments?

Peter Hain: One of the wastes and inefficiencies under this Labour Government has been the huge taxpayer subsidy to the Conservative party. Over the past year, the Conservatives have received more in subsidy than they have raised in private donations. They have received £4 million of taxpayers' support, and have raised £3.5 million from private donations. That is an absolutely outrageous waste of public money, which ought to be addressed.

Oliver Heald: Would you take the Short money?

Peter Hain: Indeed, I am happy to support that. Political parties in trouble ought to get all the help they can.
	On the overall staff figures in the civil service, is the hon. Gentleman saying that, for example, the 4,000 extra staff recruited to tackle the problem of asylum seeking, which the leader of the Conservative party bequeathed to us from his time as Home Secretary—[Hon. Members: "Rubbish."] Asylum policy was a real mess. We have had to recruit more people to combat that problem; as a result, the number of asylum applications is decreasing and the problem is being tackled seriously. Some 3,000 people have been recruited to organise the new deal, which has offered job opportunities to about 800,000 people. Is he saying that those people should be given the sack?
	The truth is that we are addressing efficiency in the civil service. As a result of the Lyons review, which we set up, we are also ensuring that 20,000 jobs are shifted from London to the rest of the country—so there is a better opportunity to disperse civil service jobs. The hon. Gentleman should be asking those questions, rather than the spurious ones that he asked.

Alan Meale: Will the Leader of the House consider allowing time to debate the excellent work done by trading standards officers throughout the length and breadth of Britain, especially as we are approaching the festive season? As part of that debate, perhaps we might also consider the problem of junk mail, which is already pouring through people's letterboxes all over the United Kingdom.

Peter Hain: I guess that in the coming months more junk mail will pour through people's letterboxes from the new leader of the Conservative party. I am sure that it will go straight into the bin, along with the rest of the junk mail.
	Trading standards officers do a valuable job, and I commend my hon. Friend for drawing the House's attention to that and for allowing us to support the work that they do.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Dr. Julian Brazier.

Julian Brazier: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am not a doctor, but I am flattered that you should think so.
	May I press the Leader of the House for an early debate on the closure of so many local jobcentres? In Kent alone we are faced with the loss of three, including the essential one on Whitstable high street. Those centres are vital to many of the most vulnerable people in our communities—not only youngsters who may otherwise get into trouble but many disabled older people. Will the Leader of the House also look at the disgraceful way in which money is being put into posts for full-time public sector officials to work with the disabled in areas where voluntary organisations such as the Shaw trust are working far more cost-effectively than any public sector body?

Peter Hain: Obviously, we want a balance between the excellent work of voluntary groups such as the Shaw trust and Government support provided through public subsidy for officials to help take that work forward. Unless this is one of the candidates for the 20 per cent. Conservative cuts—

Julian Brazier: Yes, cuts in administration.

Peter Hain: Ah, I see. The hon. Gentleman wants the further support that we have provided withdrawn from some of the most vulnerable groups in our communities.
	On the wider issue—what was it?

Phil Woolas: Jobcentres.

Peter Hain: Yes, jobcentres. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) will know, the Government are seeking to bring together benefits agencies with jobcentres, and I guess that that must at least in part be the explanation for the issue that he raises. It is a sensible thing to do, and I should have thought that he would support a one-stop shop to provide people with the opportunity to come off benefit and welfare into work in a way that record numbers of people are doing and have done under this Government. Employment is now at its highest ever, unemployment is at its lowest for a generation, and people who have not been able to get work because they have been caught between benefit and job opportunities are now getting the chance to work and the extra hope and opportunity that that brings. The hon. Gentleman should be applauding that, not criticising it.

Jim Cunningham: May I ask my right hon. Friend when we shall have a date for a decision on the location of new airports in this country? I am sure that he will be aware that there is widespread concern in Coventry and in Warwickshire regarding a proposed airport for Rugby. May we have a date for that decision?

Peter Hain: This is obviously a matter that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is actively considering. I know that my hon. Friend is a champion of airports in his area, and the Secretary of State is well aware of the importance that he attaches to those airports, and of the important role that they play in the region.

Tim Loughton: The Leader of the House has dealt very lightly with the concerns of my hon. Friends about the Minister for Children. The problem is that the last four or five months of her tenure in office have been completely bedevilled by her fighting rearguard actions about her suitability for that post, which has been seriously called into question by her irrational remarks this week. If the Leader of the House is so convinced that his Government now have the most rigorous policy on child protection, why cannot we have a debate on it? May I remind him that in the 10 months since Lord Laming produced his report on 28 January, there has been not a single debate in Government time on child protection matters? There was one statement on the Green Paper on 8 September, which lacked an awful lot of detail. If he is so impressed by his policy, cannot we have a debate in the House and put it to the test properly?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate at this stage what will come in the Queen's Speech. I assure him, however, that over the course of the coming year or so the work that was initiated in the Green Paper on children's rights, into which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Children put a great deal of work, will be debated fully in the House, and he will have every opportunity to raise whatever issues he wants.

John Battle: Since I entered the House in 1987, I have been campaigning for victims and their families who suffered from asbestos pollution in my constituency. In the 1990s, we won a court case to prove that the company was liable. The company was then bought by an American company, Federal Mogul, which bought the parent company, Turner and Newell. Some three years ago, that American company put the whole operation in Britain into liquidation to avoid paying out to the families and their victims. We now learn that the administrators have in the last two years received £75 million from the funds—the victims have received nothing. I refer my right hon. Friend to the early-day motion tabled on this subject, and I ask the House and the Government to have a discussion on this matter and to look into the responsibilities of corporate insurance. This issue affects hundreds of thousands of our constituents who suffer from asbestos pollution.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has championed this cause—I am grateful to him because it is an issue that affects everyone—as he has championed many other causes both in his present role as a Back Bencher and in his distinguished ministerial career. On this particular issue, I shall consider his request. He has other opportunities to apply for a debate, and it would be good to give the issue an airing.

Richard Bacon: Given that the Treasury private finance initiative building incurred professional fees of £25,303,000, which is more than 20 per cent. of the total construction cost of the building, and the Home Office, for its PFI project, paid £2 million to the contractor for the insertion of a refinancing clause that should have been included anyway, can we have a debate next week in Government time on the Government's relationship with its PFI contractors? At the moment, it looks as though the contractors are running rings around this Government.

Peter Hain: I do not accept that for a moment. I do not anticipate an early debate, but the hon. Gentleman is welcome to apply for one if he wishes.

Dave Watts: May I inform my right hon. Friend that there is still major confusion about the future of the west coast main line, with Ministers, the regulator, the Strategic Rail Authority and Virgin all saying different things? Can he arrange for the Secretary of State for Transport to come to the House to clarify whether he is still committed to the full modernisation of the west coast main line by 2005 to Liverpool, and by 2008 to Scotland? It would be an opportunity to clear up some of the confusion that now arises over the scheme.

Peter Hain: I will certainly ensure that the Secretary of State understands my hon. Friend's point. I know that my hon. Friend will also want to commend my right hon. Friend, however, on the expert way in which he is driving forward unprecedented investment in railway stock and in the railways, to try to deliver the first-class railway service that this country needs but of which it has been deprived for many long years, not least because of the abject failure of the Conservative party in government to invest in the railway system.

Bob Spink: May we have a debate on the impact of overdevelopment in the south-east, which has been forced on us, against the people's wishes, by the Deputy Prime Minister? We could consider the impact of that overdevelopment on communities such as Castle Point, where the quality of life is already severely affected by congestion and by the lack of investment in our infrastructure.

Peter Hain: The Government are very concerned about congestion in the south-east and are taking action to do what we can to address it in terms of modernisation of our transport system and planning policy. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that powerful economic forces are at work in the south-east of England, which has been booming for a number of years. That is at the root of the problem. It is not easy to resolve that with any quick fixes.

Parmjit Dhanda: Is my right hon. Friend aware of my constituents, Mills and Poole, who served 13 years in prison for a murder that they did not commit? From answers to written questions over recent weeks, I understand that there are 58 people in this land in a similar position, who are waiting 182 days on average before their eligibility for compensation is assessed, and there are further processes to take place before they receive their compensation. That is a long time to wait for an interim compensation payment in relation to a crime that those people did not commit. Can my right hon. Friend prevail on the Home Office to make a statement on this issue?

Peter Hain: One hundred and eighty-two days is indeed a very long time to wait. My hon. Friend will obviously understand that these claims must be properly assessed to conform to the correct procedures. I commend him on raising this matter, and I am sure that the Home Secretary will want to respond and look at the matter urgently, because it is a real concern, as he said.

Andrew Rosindell: The Leader of the House will be aware that we have regular opportunities to debate the affairs of Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. Although the House of Commons makes laws and decisions that affect the British overseas territories and the Crown dependencies, no debate ever takes place on those territories for which we are responsible. Will the Leader of the House allow the House to have an annual debate on the overseas territories so that we may discuss issues that relate to them, bearing in mind that the people who live there have no elected representation in the British Parliament?

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman, of course, has the opportunity to apply for an Adjournment debate on a range of issues, and that subject could be one of them, if he wished.

Martin Salter: Will the Leader of the House give us some indication of when we shall have the opportunity to debate the higher education Bill and the flawed plans—in my view—to introduce student top-up fees?

Peter Hain: We will obviously find time to discuss the matter and, indeed, it has been discussed regularly in Education questions and when the Secretary of State made his statement. I am sure that my hon. Friend would want to join me in opposing any policy that the Government could adopt that would echo the Conservatives' policy of denying at least 100,000 students the opportunity to study at university while plunging our universities into the financial chaos from which we have rescued them since we have been in government.

Paul Flynn: When can we discuss early-day motion 1902, which congratulates the Government on their courageous and far-sighted proposals on identity cards, which will deal with the serious and growing problems of identity theft and fraud?
	[That this House congratulates the Government on its far-sighted proposal to deal with the growing problems of identity theft and fraud; believes that conscientious objections to identity cards on the basis of liberty and privacy can be overcome by the use of zero knowledge protocol which will allow speedy identification while biometrically protecting confidential information which will not be stored on a central database; and is convinced that this protocol will make identity cards acceptable by also providing new access to services for users.]
	The EDM urges the Government to examine ways in which objections on conscientious grounds about liberty and confidentiality could be overcome by using zero knowledge protocols, which would biometrically protect the confidentiality of the information and avoid the use of a central database. With that system in place, virtually all the objections to identity cards could be overcome.

Peter Hain: My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. As he knows, the Home Secretary announced the Government's intention to proceed with consulting on and taking forward a programme to introduce identity cards. He also knows that we are effectively a long way down that road, given the need for biometrics on driving licences and passports that is coming up. I am informed that it might not be possible to get into the United States of America in one or two years unless one carries a biometric because that is one of the security measures that the country is introducing. The Home Secretary will obviously consider my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Clive Betts: I am sure that the Leader of the House recognises that we in Sheffield warmly welcome the substantial increases in funding for the national health service, which has produced improvements in the treatment of cancer, heart disease and other illnesses. However, I hope that he will arrange a debate on the priority—some would say the lack of priority—given to mental health services. The Sheffield community health trust recently announced an overspend for this year of £650,000, which has led to the partial temporary closure of a brand new respite care unit, among other things. We also have no 24-hour crisis intervention service in the city and there is inadequate funding for adult outreach services and early intervention services for young people. Will my right hon. Friend arrange for a debate so that we can give publicity to those issues and hopefully get more priority for those services?

Peter Hain: Obviously, the issues to which my hon. Friend draws our attention are of concern and he will want to pursue them as a constituency MP. I am sure that he will agree that the Government have accorded mental health the status of being one of their four main priorities on health policy. There must be delivery across the board throughout the country, so perhaps the issue needs to be considered in the context of his Sheffield constituency.

David Kidney: The water framework directive has massive implications for our water quality, supply and cost in addition to much broader environmental implications. The directive must be transposed into national law by the end of 2003. Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs officials tell me that our regulations are ready to be published but the House will consider them only under the negative procedure. Does my right hon. Friend think that the matter, which the Select Committee described as hugely important, will merit a full debate in Government time in December when the regulations appear?

Peter Hain: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the matter but he will understand that, with the Queen's Speech debate ending in early December and the need to send him and colleagues packing in time for Christmas, it is not possible for me to promise him such a debate.

John Lyons: Is my right hon. Friend familiar with early-day motion 1793 on the topic of the 60th anniversary of D-day?
	[That this House notes that 6th June 2004 will mark the 60th anniversary of the Normandy landings; recognises the sacrifice made by thousands of service personnel on this day and throughout the Second World War; congratulates the Government on issuing free passports for those veterans wishing to travel to France to mark the anniversary but expresses concern at the apparent low key nature in which the United Kingdom Government intends to commemorate this day; and calls on the Government to ensure that the 60th anniversary commemorations are a fitting tribute to the veterans who will attend and honour all those who paid the ultimate sacrifice to protect our freedom.]
	Several people raised the matter with me last weekend at Remembrance day services. They want the House to find a proper and sensitive way to commemorate the event, and I think that there would be all-party support for that.

Peter Hain: I am sure that there would be such support. The Government intend to ensure that the D-day celebrations are an important commemoration of the sacrifices made and the courage shown by those who took part in the D-day operation. I, too, was involved in Remembrance day services. I was greatly moved by the first ever national Welsh Remembrance day service on Sunday, as I am sure was the whole House.

Gordon Prentice: The House recently decided to pay some Select Committee Chairmen an additional £12,500 a year. However, there is no transparency about the way in which Members get on to Select Committees. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House hold discussions with his opposite numbers in all political parties represented in the House and place in the Library a memorandum from each party specifying in some detail its procedures for putting Members on Select Committees?

Peter Hain: This is obviously primarily a matter for the Committee of Selection but my hon. Friend makes an interesting suggestion. It would be valuable if the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats—and other parties, no doubt—published details of the way in which they select Committee members. We in the parliamentary Labour party have a transparent procedure. Nominations are invited—people may nominate themselves—and the names go to our parliamentary committee, which is the Executive of the parliamentary Labour party. Indeed, my hon. Friend sat on that parliamentary committee until a week or two ago. The parliamentary committee recommends names to the full membership of the parliamentary Labour party, so the process is fully transparent and democratic. The Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats should at least match that process and the House should know about their procedures.

Brian Iddon: Has my right hon. Friend noticed the significant growth of all-party parliamentary groups in this Parliament? The upside of that is that hon. Members can attend meetings of interesting groups but the downside is that pressure is being put on room bookings and attendance at meetings of long-established groups is going down. Has the time come to undertake a review of all-party groups, taking into account the views of all right hon. and hon. Members?

Peter Hain: I understand the points that my hon. Friend raises, especially about congestion with room bookings. The matter is primarily for the Administration Committee and the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards rather than me, but I shall certainly look into it. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that one of the groups that was turned down for all-party group status was the Manchester United football supporters group. Speaking as a Chelsea fan, that gives me great pleasure.

Kelvin Hopkins: We have witnessed widespread failures across the board in all forms of privatisation. We have seen failing companies that work with local education authorities. There have been failures by Railtrack and the whole railway industry. The water industry has failed to invest in sewerage systems that need to be replaced because Victorian sewers are crumbling. There has been widespread failure in almost every area and we have heard comments today about PFI schemes, which are clearly causing problems and are horrendously expensive. Is it not time for my right hon. Friend to grant a thorough debate on the future of privatisation and whether we should think again about going back to proper public investment, which works better and is cheaper and publicly accountable?

Peter Hain: I am sure that my hon. Friend also acknowledges that the Government have presided over record public investment in our infrastructure, including the areas that he mentioned, and public services. I would not want him to imply that that is not the case—I am sure that he does not. In addition, a great deal of private sector investment has been levered in through PFIs, whatever the problems associated with them—there is one in my county borough council and I know that there are issues to consider. My hon. Friend should not paint such a one-sided picture.

Shona McIsaac: Is it possible to have a debate in Government time, perhaps after the Queen's Speech—I realise there is pressure on next week's business—on the employment figures released this week, which were excellent news? In particular, I should like the debate to focus on the impact of the new deal on youth unemployment in every constituency the length and breadth of the land.

Peter Hain: It would be very good to find time for such a debate. The Government's record on employment, including the figures announced today, is tremendous, as my hon. Friend implies. We have created a rise in employment of more than 1.6 million. More people are in work now than ever before in Britain's history and unemployment has come down. I am sure that the new deal has been a great success in her constituency, as it has in all constituencies, including mine.

Oliver Heald: indicated dissent.

Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head, but the figures speak for themselves. Some 810,000 people have been given job opportunities. The new deal has given many people in my constituency—lone parents, people with disabilities, people who have not worked for a long time and young unemployed people—the chance to work. They now have hope and opportunity. The Conservatives want to plunge those people back into the very despair that they reigned over in their 18 miserable years in office.

Kevin Brennan: We have codes of conduct for civil servants, special advisers, Members of the House and Ministers. Is there not a case for introducing a code of conduct for shadow Ministers, given the real possibility of conflicts of interest, and may we debate that?

Peter Hain: It is a very interesting idea. Members are, of course, covered by the standards of conduct laid down by the House and set out in the Register of Members' Interests. Ministers are covered by the Government code of conduct, also approved by the House. There is, however, no code of conduct for shadow Ministers. The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) may want to consider that, as, indeed, may the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Sessional Orders that apply to the House also apply to access to the building by Members on a specific day when the House is sitting? Will he also confirm that demonstrations have frequently been held outside the Houses of Parliament during parliamentary sittings in the past five years? In light of that, it would be completely unreasonable to disallow a peaceful march to protest against the visit of President Bush next week from going across Westminster bridge and up Whitehall to the rally in Trafalgar square. Will the Leader of the House consult the Home Office on that so that arrangements can be made with the Metropolitan police to facilitate the march? While he is discussing those matters, perhaps President Bush can do a question and answer session with Members of Parliament, because he appears not to be meeting any other members of the public during his visit.

Peter Hain: I cannot comment on the details of President Bush's visit. Policing and the route of the march are matters for the Home Secretary and the Metropolitan Police Commissioner. I emphasise that the Home Secretary has made it clear that people have a right to protest, which will be upheld provided that it is conducted and exercised peacefully.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

Northern Ireland

That the Northern Ireland Assembly (Elections and Periods of Suspension) Act 2003 (Consequential Modifications No. 2) Order 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 2752), dated 28th October 2003, a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to.

Extradition Bill [Money] (No. 2)

Queen's recommendation having been signified—

Caroline Flint: rose—

Nick Hawkins: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. You will be aware that the Extradition Bill only finished in another place at 6.19 pm last night and it is today's main business. Although the Clerks have been most helpful to me and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), as has the Minister's private office, is it possible to bring pressure on the Government so that in future business that finishes in another place the night before is not our main business the following day?
	The Government could have listed the Extradition Bill for debate next week, which would have placed much less pressure on servants of the House, such as the Clerks. It would also have enabled the House of Commons Library to brief Opposition Members on what has happened. The Government made significant concessions on points made by both main Opposition parties, but those were only put on the record in another place yesterday. Surely we need a gap between when such important business finishes in another place and when it comes to us, so that proper advice can be taken; otherwise, the Government have an unfair advantage because they know what they are going to propose and it is difficult for the Opposition parties to prepare for it.

Alistair Carmichael: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I associate myself with the remarks of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins). There is no need for us to be in this highly unsatisfactory situation. The Bill went to Committee in January. As the hon. Gentleman said, matters were, by and large, resolved in the other place, but had that not been the case, we would have been, to all intents and purposes, unable to scrutinise the measures introduced in the other place and the substantial raft of Government amendments passed.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I understand the difficulties outlined and the problems experienced by hon. Members and staff of the House in those circumstances, but it is not a matter for the Chair. The arrangements for the business of the House are not part of Mr. Speaker's responsibilities. It may have been more appropriate to raise that issue in business questions when the Leader of House was responding.

Paul Tyler: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is precisely what I did just a few minutes ago. I am surprised that the Leader of the House was not prepared to respond to the points raised.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. The Leader of the House obviously heard what you said and he is present for this exchange. Perhaps the arrangements will be considered differently in future. 1.27 pm

Caroline Flint: I beg to move,
	That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Extradition Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State under the Act.
	The House will recall that a money resolution was duly tabled and passed at the conclusion of Second Reading in this House last December. Indeed, it was passed without debate or a Division. However, on closer examination after the Bill had reached another place, we discovered that the money resolution was not comprehensive enough and did not deal with one clause. That clause is clause 154 of the latest print of the Bill or clause 153 of the version of the Bill as it left this House for another place.
	The clause deals with people who are extradited to the United Kingdom and then, for whatever reason, either not put on trial or acquitted. It provides that in such circumstances the person concerned can apply to the Secretary of State to have the costs of his or her return travel to the country from which he or she was extradited paid for out of public funds. Something very similar can be found in our existing extradition legislation in section 20 of the Extradition Act 1989.
	It is an infrequently used provision. Nevertheless, I am sure that hon. Members will understand why it is desirable. If we are to use public funds to pay for the return travel of those extradited but not convicted, we need a money resolution to cover it. I apologise to the House for the fact that the original money resolution was not drawn widely enough to cover that, but I trust that hon. Members will be forgiving and agree to remedy that deficiency by passing this supplementary money resolution.

Nick Hawkins: I repeat what I said in my point of order: I am grateful to the Minister and, in particular, the private secretary and others in her office for their help, given the shortage of time. I have no difficulty agreeing to the money resolution. As the Minister says, it is unfortunate that the matter was not dealt with earlier, but she has apologised to the House on behalf of the Government for that. We would certainly not want to prevent those who are extradited but then not convicted from having the opportunity to apply to public funds for reimbursement. Each case would, of course, be considered on its own merits.
	While we are on the subject of the costs incurred by British citizens who are dealt with by courts abroad, will the Minister undertake to look into a related matter? She will probably be aware that in Committee and in another place there was a great deal of discussion about the parallels with the British plane spotters in Greece, even though that was not an extradition case. Whenever any British citizen goes abroad to a face court they may well incur a large expenditure. I recently tabled questions to the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), because the British plane spotters who were arrested in Greece and had to surrender bail have not had their money returned. I received a reply only this week in which the Under-Secretary said:
	"My right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Attorney-General have made no representations to the Greek Government to ensure repayment of the British plane spotters' bail money.
	The Greek court released the bail money on 22 May 2003. One of the 12 has now received his money. The others are currently in dispute with their Greek lawyers, one of whom has taken out an injunction to prevent this money being released until a solution is agreed. This is now a private, legal dispute between the plane spotters and their lawyers."—[Official Report, 11 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 205W.]
	I realise that the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), cannot give me an answer today, but when she is looking at the costs of British subjects who face the courts abroad, particularly people who receive as much publicity as the plane spotters, to whom we shall undoubtedly return when we discuss the substance of the amendments, will she undertake to talk her colleagues in the Foreign Office? The Conservatives believe that it is unacceptable that British citizens who were taking part in a perfectly lawful activity and should never have been arrested in the first place are now substantially out of pocket. According to the answer that I received from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the British Government are not helping them. They need help, and I am sure that the case will again attract a great deal of publicity if the Government do not provide it, so I hope that the Minister will undertake to talk to her right hon. and hon. Friends in the Foreign Office.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister well knows that hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and myself, are, by our very nature, forgiving people. We have no difficulty at all with the comprehensive and eminently sensible money resolution.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath made some interesting, if not necessarily germane, comments about the plane spotters in Greece. If I recall correctly, he has a constituency interest, although I may be wrong. When we first heard about the plane spotters in Committee, there was snow on the ground, but it has now been replaced by autumn leaves. Unfortunately, however, the plane spotters' situation has not been resolved satisfactorily.

Caroline Flint: I shall raise this issue with my colleagues in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. To pick up a comment by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), I have yet to be involved with a piece of legislation in which the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) did not have a constituency interest. He is a diligent constituency MP, and always makes sure that when we are discussing legislation, we have a realistic view of the way in which it affects people outside. I would not be surprised if he mentioned a number of his constituents in our debates today, as it would be quite right to do so.
	I welcome the comments made by both hon. Gentlemen. All the main Government amendments were made on Report in the Lords, which finished two weeks ago, and the Government amendments that were considered on Third Reading in the Lords were tabled a week ago, so I hope that there was time to look at them. I was pleased to receive thanks from the hon. Gentlemen for the way in which the Department, particularly my private office, has helped them.
	Question put and agreed to.

EXTRADITION BILL (PROGRAMME) (NO. 2)

Motion made, and Question proposed, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
	That the following provisions shall apply to the Extradition Bill for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 9th December 2002 and 25th March 2003:
	Consideration of Lords Amendments
	1. Proceedings on Consideration of Lords Amendments shall be completed at this day's sitting and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at Six o'clock.
	2. The Lords Amendments shall be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 3, 26, 27, 72, 74, 111, 1 and 2, 4 to 25, 28 to 71, 73, 75 to 110, 112 to 244, and any remaining Lords Amendments.
	Subsequent stages
	3. Any further Message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
	4. The proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Gillian Merron.]
	Question agreed to. Orders of the Day

Extradition Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I must draw the attention of the House to the fact that privilege is involved in Lords amendment No. 157. If the House agrees to the Lords amendment, I shall ensure that the appropriate entry is made in the Journal.

Clause 2
	 — 
	Part 1 Warrant and Certificate

Lords amendment: No. 3.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Government amendments (b), (c), (d) and (e).

Caroline Flint: I invite the House to agree the to the Government amendments to the Lords amendment. We are trying to preserve the spirit of the Lords amendment while, at the same time, using language that is suitable for a piece of UK legislation. We are concerned about the information that an incoming Part 1 warrant should contain. In the Government's view, the Bill is explicit about that, but in another place Members took a different view. In particular, they decided to import wording from the framework decision on the European arrest warrant into the Bill. We have no objection to that in principle, but it is much more sensible to use language that can be readily understood by people in this country, and which has been prepared by our expert parliamentary counsel.
	We therefore propose to remove the requirement that the warrant should contain details of the nature and legal classification of the offence, as well as the applicable statutory provision, replacing it with any provision of the law of the category 1 territory under which the conduct is alleged to constitute an offence. Basically, what does the requesting country think that the person has done, and how is its law applied? I am sure that hon. Members will recognise that that is a slightly neater and more straightforward formulation. I should also make it clear for the avoidance of doubt that there is already a separate requirement to give details of the sentence that could be passed.
	Similarly, we are replacing a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed with details of the conduct alleged to constitute the offence. It is important that the person's acts, not the reasons why he or she committed the offence, should be clear. The term "circumstances" could lead to confusion. The requirement is therefore expressed more neatly and clearly and in keeping with the way in which our legislation is usually drafted.
	We are seeking to remove one part of the Lords amendment without replacing it—the requirement that the warrant should contain information about the degree of participation in the offence by the requested person. I am not sure that I understand what that means or why it is relevant. For extradition purposes, it does not matter whether the person is the ringleader or an accomplice, provided that they are alleged to have committed an extradition offence. For example, it does not matter whether someone was waving a sawn-off shotgun at the bank teller or driving the getaway car—it is the offence that is important. Clearly, the nature of participation may be an important consideration in the eventual trial and determination of sentence, but for the purposes of extradition to another EU country it is not relevant.
	As I have tried to suggest, we have sought to accept the spirit of the amendment made in another place, while ensuring that the drafting is as clear and effective as possible. I invite the House to accept the Government amendments.

Nick Hawkins: As I said earlier, only this week did the Government say that they were prepared to start to climb down in the face of the defeats that they suffered in another place. Even though it was a last-minute concession, or at least a meeting of the Opposition parties halfway, it was nevertheless welcome. I do not hold the Minister responsible in any way. Her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) was very intransigent in Committee, but he has now resumed his role as the Government hard man or deputy Chief Whip. Baroness Scotland met my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, who is my party's spokesperson in another place, only on Tuesday afternoon, and discussed the climb-down that the Government were proposing to make.
	We have found that the Government are meeting us about halfway on this matter. Even though that is welcome, we have said throughout the proceedings on this Bill and in Committees in both Houses that the warrant relating to the extradition of a British citizen to a category 1 country should include detailed and specific information. Of course, the Opposition still have fundamental objections to the concept of the European arrest warrant and the way in which minor administrative judicial officials in other countries, working as investigators, juges d'instruction or the like, may be able to require the extradition of UK citizens, while the British courts will be unable to look behind the warrant. We maintain that objection.
	Yesterday, the Home Secretary referred in his statement on identity cards to the distinguished writer Frederick Forsyth and told us that he regarded him highly as a writer, but not as a political commentator. I regard Mr. Forsyth highly in both capacities, however, and I refer my hon. Friends and those outside the House who take an interest in these matters to his trenchant and accurate comments on this issue. I was reminded of his prescience in looking at the European arrest warrant, as well as the Government's proposed amendments to allow more to be included on the back of it, when I was stuck in traffic yesterday listening to a recording of one of his brilliant Saturday morning Radio 4 essays, which were broadcast before the BBC revealed its bias and took him off the air.
	Unfortunately, despite the strong views on this matter that we expressed in Committee and in another place, the rules constraining today's proceedings allow us to debate only the matters coming from the Lords and the way in which the Government are responding to the defeats that we inflicted on them there. The Government's halfway house proposal is an attempt to soften the blow by ensuring that the warrant contains some details about what the requesting country alleges against the UK citizen. We hope that that may enable challenges if requesting countries make inappropriate requests and the warrant is clearly defective because it does not provide what amendment (a) will require.
	I should stress, however, that that does not entirely allay our fears, and I wish to refer briefly to what my noble Friend Lord Lamont and some other noble Friends said yesterday in another place in furthering the concerns expressed by distinguished jurists and commentators such as Leolin Price, QC, and Torquil Dick Erikson, who have helped us a great deal. Lord Lamont spoke about the difficulty that may arise if British citizens find that they are being summoned abroad on the basis of code Napoleon and corpus juris-type requirements. At column 1412 of Hansard, he expressed concern about the way in which British citizens' rights may be trampled on by people investigating matters rather than prosecuting them.
	None the less, the European arrest warrant will now have to contain the details that we regard as equivalent to the legal classification of the offence in question, as set out in the original Opposition amendment and in the European framework decision. We will discuss the list of offences later in respect of Lords amendment No. 236. I understand why the Government do not feel able to include reference to the degree of participation, as we suggested in the original amendment, on which we defeated them. They believe that there is a danger that the question whether somebody was a ringleader, as the Minister puts it, or one of the hangers-on in an offence might cause confusion and create a loophole.
	That is why we have agreed, however reluctantly, to accept the Government's halfway house, but we still feel very strongly that, because extradition cases may now be much more common, as my noble Friend Lord Lamont said yesterday in another place, there may still be occasions on which somebody is arrested and brought before foreign courts without the degree of protection that British citizens have previously been able to expect.

Alistair Carmichael: We have had confession and forgiveness from the Minister, and now we apparently have repentance, even though it has come at the eleventh hour, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said. None the less, the Liberal Democrats welcome that repentance, which represents a significant improvement. Indeed, it is a tribute to the manner in which business is done in another place. I should like to observe in passing, however, that it is regrettable that one sometimes has to debate such matters in this place four times before the argument is finally accepted and that it is sometimes not the force of argument, but the force of timetabling, that seems to carry the day. 1.45 pm
	As I said, the safeguards that are being introduced are important and should be included in the Bill. The one significant change that the Government seek to make to the Lords amendment is the exclusion of the reference to the degree of participation. I agree with the hon. Member for Surrey Heath that that represents an improvement to the amendment, which strays from what we wanted the warrant to include and relates to what is properly a matter of evidence. It is important that such distinctions are maintained.
	I commend the Government for having taken the point that was made and improved on it.

Caroline Flint: I welcome the support of the hon. Members for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael). We try to show that we are a listening Government and ensure that the process of scrutinising legislation—in the case of extradition, it is very detailed legislation—is seen to work, and I commend my noble Friend Baroness Scotland for all her endeavours in that regard.
	Obviously, we want to introduce legislation that clearly respects the rights of British citizens while recognising that the European arrest warrant has huge benefits in terms of securing effective arrests and a more open and transparent way of ensuring that nobody who commits a crime can escape the consequences by crossing a border. The measures in the Bill and the tightening up provided by the amendments will further reassure people about the way in which the European arrest warrant, and consequently extradition, will be applied.
	Government amendments (a) to (d) agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 20
	 — 
	Case Where Person Has Been Convicted

Lords amendment: No. 26.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof, Lords amendment No. 111, Government motion to disagree thereto and Government amendment (a) in lieu thereof.

Caroline Flint: I invite the House to disagree with the amendments made in another place, and to agree to the amendments in lieu tabled in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I shall seek to demonstrate that we have accepted the substance of the amendments made in another place.
	The Bill contains detailed provisions to cover a situation in which we receive an extradition request for a person convicted in absentia. They reflect the approach that the UK has always adopted, although I should add the rider that in absentia cases are very rare. The Bill provides that, where we receive a request in respect of a person who has been convicted in absentia, the judge, after considering all the main bars to extradition, must decide whether the person deliberately absented himself from his trial. Clearly, if the person deliberately absented himself by not turning up for the trial or escaping from custody, he should not be entitled to any special treatment. However, if the judge concludes that the person did not deliberately absent himself, he can order extradition only if the person will be entitled to a retrial or a review amounting to a retrial. The reference to a review is intended simply to reflect the fact that not every other EU country uses the same terminology as we do. However, a review has to have the same features as a retrial in order for extradition to be permissible in those circumstances. A retrial differs from an appeal. An appeal starts from the basis that the original verdict stands unless the court finds to the contrary. A retrial, by contrast, begins with a blank sheet of paper with the case against the person having to be proved afresh.
	That is the background. Let me now say more about the amendments. In another place, the clauses dealing with in absentia convictions were amended to specify more precisely the features that a retrial or a review should include. Three particular features were specified—the right to be present at the trial, the right to call and cross-examine witnesses, and the right to legal aid. There can clearly be no objection of principle to those important features of any fair trial. We think, however, that some improvement could be made to the wording. That is hardly surprising, since the Government, unlike opposition parties, are able to call on the services of our expert parliamentary counsel, who are always there to serve us.
	Accordingly, the Government amendments achieve broadly the same results—but they do so in a slightly different way. They provide that the judge cannot conclude that that which is on offer amounts to a retrial or a review, and therefore cannot order extradition, unless the person has the right to legal assistance or legal aid—if he lacks means—and the right to cross-examine witnesses and call his own witnesses. The wording that we adopted is drawn straight from article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights, so it has an impeccable pedigree.
	On the third right that was dealt with in the amendment passed in another place—the right to be present at the retrial or review—we simply do not believe that we can create an absolute right of that kind. As hon. Members will be aware, no such absolute right exists in this country. A judge at a trial has the power to order a person to be removed from the court if he is being abusive or disruptive. Exactly the same is true in other countries. We have to respect that, which is why the Government amendments in lieu do not refer to the right to be present.
	With that explanation, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the Government have gone as far as possible to meet the concerns that were expressed in another place. I therefore invite this House to agree to the Government amendments in lieu of those that were made in another place.

Nick Hawkins: Once again, the Government have responded to a defeat that was inflicted on them in another place by my noble Friends, those of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and one or two Cross Benchers. I agree with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland that given that the Bill is pretty much a year old—we debated it in Committee as long ago as January—it is a great shame that we finally have these last-minute concessions only because the Government were worried about fighting on too many fronts in the last few days of the Session and did not want a kind of ping-pong between the two Houses on several Bills at once. Nevertheless, the concessions are of course welcome.
	We defeated the Government on these matters in another place on 27 October—the debate starts at column 32 of that day's Hansard. We were seeking to provide further vital protection for UK citizens who may face extradition to countries with legal procedures that are very different from our own. We debated that at length in Committee back in January. Many organisations on both sides of politics—whether Liberty and Justice on one side, or the Freedom Association and the Democracy Movement on the other—expressed great concern about the provisions on the European arrest warrant. Organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad pointed out that because procedures in other countries are so different, the Bill needs to provide extra protection, especially in cases involving extradition for the purposes of retrial after conviction in absentia. As recently as yesterday, my noble Friends Baroness Anelay of St. Johns, Lord Lamont of Lerwick and Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Baroness Carnegy, among others, expressed concern about legal procedures in countries such as Italy. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples), who had hoped to speak in this debate but sadly cannot be with us because of other parliamentary commitments, has done likewise in respect of other countries, including Spain and France. I am very pleased that the Government have agreed, albeit at the last minute, to deal with that.
	The Minister has now finally agreed that there must be a right to legal aid and to recall and cross-examine witnesses. A great deal of discussion took place yesterday and on 27 October about the examples cited by organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad to the effect that legal aid, as we understand it, is sometimes unavailable even in major European countries such as Spain, Portugal and France. My noble Friend Lord Lamont, in particular, referred to that.
	The Government have made it clear that all UK citizens who are extradited must have the benefit of their rights under the European convention on human rights. We understand their wish, as reflected in their amendments, not to create any loophole that might enable someone to escape a deserved extradition simply by not being present in court. That was the basis of the discussions between the Minister's noble Friend Baroness Scotland and my noble Friend Baroness Anelay on Tuesday afternoon. Our intention, as the Government recognise, was to avoid an overseas country being able to hold an improper retrial, or trial in absentia, of a UK citizen.
	We are glad that the Government have accepted with good grace the defeat that we inflicted on them in another place, and we are reasonably content with their compromise version of our amendment. We wish, however, that it had not been necessary to keep pressing them—on three or four occasions, as the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland said. In all the previous debates, we were told that they had no plans whatsoever to give way; only at the very last minute, faced with the danger of ping-pong between the two Houses at the end of the Session, do we get some common sense. It would surely be better had the Government conceded this vital point at a much earlier stage, as they could have done.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made repeated reference to his noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick. I may represent one of the smaller constituencies, but we in the northern isles punch above our weight in terms of our contribution to proceedings in both Houses.
	The Minister said that in absentia trials are relatively uncommon in this country. Indeed, they are extremely rare. I can think of only a small range of very minor offences, such as those under the vehicle excise duties legislation, where trials can be held in the absence of the accused. The situation is very different in other continental jurisdictions—in France, for example, one can be tried in absentia on a charge of murder. This is an important protection, and I am delighted that, albeit at this late stage in the proceedings, the Government have been persuaded of the merits of the arguments that were put to them in Committee and in the other place.
	The availability of state-funded legal assistance is important. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath speaks with justifiable pride of the practice in United Kingdom jurisdictions in that regard. Although I understand that that is a 20th-century phenomenon south of the border, the Minister may know that an Act of the Scots Parliament some time in the 15th century first provided for that north of the border. I am therefore delighted that those south of the border have been able to catch up with us over time.
	The right to be present at a retrial or review and to cross-examine witnesses is also important. I commend parliamentary draftsmen and counsel for their elegant re-expression of the provision, and the Minister for reintroducing the amendment in a way that does not significantly disturb the sense of the Lords amendment. Liberal Democrat Members have no difficulty with the amendments in lieu.

Caroline Flint: Again, I thank hon. Members for supporting the Government amendment. It is designed to deal with those who commit crimes while ensuring that they have the protection that they deserve.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 26 agreed to.

After Clause 21

Lords amendment: No. 27—a new clause.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House disagrees with the Lords in the said amendment.
	I invite hon. Members to agree to remove the new clause, which was inserted on Report in the Lords. It is unnecessary and inappropriate, as I shall endeavour to explain. Extradition is a classic balancing act, involving the rights of the person whose extradition is sought on the one hand, and the need for society to ensure that those accused of serious crimes are swiftly brought to justice on the other.
	The Government believe that the Bill strikes the right balance between the rights of the fugitive and the interests of justice. We have built several important safeguards into the extradition process. Many are the same as those in existing extradition legislation but the most important of them are new.
	To ensure that the requested person's human rights are fully considered and safeguarded, we have included specific bars to extradition on the ground of human rights in part 1 and part 2—clauses 21 and 86 in the copy of the Bill that we are examining today. Those clauses are unambiguous. They provide that a judge must refuse to extradite a person if the extradition would be incompatible with the fugitive's convention rights under the Human Rights Act 1998. If extradition would breach the fugitive's rights under the European convention on human rights, it must not and cannot take place.
	Not only does that protect against infringing individual rights in this country, but ECHR case law has clearly established that those obligations extend to the fugitive's likely fate if he is extradited. If there is a significant risk that his rights under ECHR will be breached when he is returned to the requesting state, we cannot extradite. That is important, and it might help hon. Members if I gave an example.
	The key case is that of Soering. In its judgment in that case, the European Court of Human Rights stated:
	"It would hardly be compatible with the underlying values of the convention, were a contracting party knowingly to surrender a fugitive to another State where there were substantial grounds for believing that he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, however heinous the crime allegedly committed. Extradition in such circumstances would be plainly contrary to the spirit and intent of Article 3."
	On article 3, the Court stated:
	"The decision by a Contracting State to extradite a fugitive may give rise to an issue under article 3 and hence engage the responsibility of that State under the convention, where substantial grounds have been shown for believing that the person concerned, if extradited, faces a real risk of being subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment in the requesting country."
	The Court went on to explain that article 6 issues could arise in extradition proceedings when there was a significant risk of the denial of a right to a fair trial in the requesting state.
	Not only do our procedures have to comply with ECHR, but we could not extradite where there was a significant risk that the procedures in the requesting state would result in a breach of the fugitive's convention rights. We should be in no doubt that fugitives and their lawyers will not be slow to use the provisions and take every opportunity to argue that ECHR protection means that extradition should not take place.
	That brings me neatly to the amendment that was made in another place. It inserted a new clause that contains four subsections, with which I should like to deal. The first subsection requires the district judge to have particular regard to article 6.3 of the ECHR. As I am sure hon. Members know, article 6.3 guarantees the right to a fair trial and refers to minimum rights, including the rights to mount a defence, to have publicly funded defence lawyers, to call and cross-examine witnesses and to have an interpreter if necessary. Although those rights are important, I do not understand why the article needs to be singled out.
	As I said, those who represent fugitives will doubtless try to argue that extradition should be barred on the ground of the ECHR. In many cases, their submissions will be built around likely breaches of article 6.3. However, there will be times when it could be argued that extradition would lead to breaches of articles 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6.2, to name a few. A breach of any would be serious, and the district judge would need to give all such arguments serious consideration. I do not understand why we should draw attention to one specific article, almost suggesting that breaches of other articles are a lesser matter. I am sure that those who devised the amendment did not intend that, but we should avoid that inadvertent effect. We should trust our judges to consider all possible ECHR breaches carefully.
	Subsection (2) of the new clause would enable the judge to accept a written assurance from the requesting state that the person's rights under article 6.3 will be properly observed if he is extradited. Apart from the general point that we should not single out article 6.3, the provision is unnecessary because the Bill already covers its substance. As the measure is currently drafted, it is open to the fugitive and the requesting state to make representations to the district judge on the ECHR question, to advance arguments and to present evidence—written or otherwise.
	In accordance with normal practice, the district judge will weigh up the evidence and arguments and reach a decision, which can be subject to appeal. In the course of that, it is open to the requesting state to submit evidence to the judge—in writing if it wants—about its procedures or any other matter in an attempt to demonstrate that the person will receive a fair, ECHR-compliant trial. The judge will decide how much weight to attach to such assurances. I cannot understand what subsection (2) of the new clause would add, given that the requesting state can already give written assurances.
	Subsection (3) would require the Secretary of State to monitor proceedings once the person had been returned. A moment's thought would demonstrate that that was not practical. Apart from practical difficulties and the costs, on what basis would the monitoring be carried out? How would the monitors decide whether rights under ECHR had been upheld? I fail to understand how the provision would be workable.
	The amendment ignores the fact that the UK has had extradition relations with a variety of countries throughout the world for more than 100 years. We conduct a large proportion of our total extradition traffic with EU member states and we have not previously believed it necessary for the Secretary of State to monitor their internal systems. If the position in countries to which we already extradite were as bad as the amendment implies we would have stopped extraditing to them many years ago. Furthermore, for the UK unilaterally and directly to monitor other EU member states' judicial systems, whether generally or specifically in extradition cases, would be a flagrant abuse of their sovereignty.
	I am sure that the House will appreciate that the UK would take great exception to other countries taking such drastically intrusive measures in respect of our procedures in this country. How would we feel if every time we got someone back from another country, they were accompanied by an official representative of that country checking on whether our criminal justice procedures were fully up to scratch?
	Subsection (4) would require the Secretary of State to bring any deficiencies that the monitoring process highlighted to the district judge when he considered fresh requests from that country. I doubt whether that will be necessary, as a fugitive will not hesitate to bring any human rights breaches to the attention of the judge, especially when the circumstances are similar. If a person is wanted by country x, the fugitive will be quick, if it helps his cause, to point out what happened to the last person who went from Britain to that country.
	There are deeper objections to the final part of the new clause. Requiring the Secretary of State to intervene in any subsequent cases involving requests from a particular country would effectively make the Secretary of State a party in an extradition case, and could have serious diplomatic ramifications if the requesting state took exception to his intervention.
	While it is true that the Secretary of State is currently involved in extradition cases, and will remain involved in part 2 cases, he very deliberately acts in a quasi-judicial fashion. Asking him to intervene to comment on the quality of another country's criminal justice system is a very different matter. On the other hand, if the Secretary of State did not become involved in a particular case, the fugitive could seek judicial review of the Secretary of State's decision not to intervene in his case. Of course, we would expect the vast majority of such attempts to fail, but we would nevertheless be bringing in another avenue of challenge and delay of exactly the sort which plagues our present system and which we are trying to avoid.
	It is already the job of the judge at the extradition hearing to determine under the human rights bar whether extradition poses a threat to the fugitive's convention rights. If there is a significant risk of article 6.3—or indeed any of the other convention rights—being breached in the requesting state, the bar to extradition will apply. The person will not be extradited. That could not be clearer and, indeed, the Bill has been given a clean bill of health in this regard by the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
	Ultimately, we have to decide whether we trust our extradition partners. We have had that trust in other European countries for more than 100 years. If we trust them, we should be prepared to extradite to them without putting in place a complicated monitoring system as envisaged by the new clause. In the light of all that, I see no need for the new clause. I apologise for having spoken at some length, but these are important issues and I wanted to take the opportunity to explain the difficulties that we have with each part of the new clause. I hope that the House will see fit to remove it and send the Bill back to another place on that basis.

Nick Hawkins: I certainly do not think that the Minister need apologise for speaking at some length, because we all recognise that these are important matters. The new clause, which the Government are now seeking to remove, was introduced by Lord Goodhart in another place on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, but with very strong support from my noble Friend Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and other noble Friends, including Lord Lamont of Lerwick, to whose comments I shall refer in a moment.
	The Conservatives are sorry that the minimum procedural rights clause—clause 22—which was inserted in another place, is to be removed. However, we have reluctantly agreed, in the light of the Government's helpful concessions on other matters, that we understand why the Minister believes that some of the monitoring might not be workable, and that the Government believe that highlighting article 6.3 of the European convention on human rights might suggest—although we never intended to; nor, I am sure, did the Liberal Democrats—that the rest of the ECHR was somehow less important. Nevertheless, it is important, particularly in the light of what the Minister has said, to refer to some of the reasons why we think that these issues remain important, even if, somewhat to our regret, the Government have decided that they cannot live with clause 22 and that it will be removed.
	We believe that certain minimum procedural rights need to apply to any British subject who might be extradited, because of the concerns that have been expressed by organisations such as Fair Trials Abroad. The issue of British citizens being able to understand proceedings in another language is crucial, and I am sure that the Minister will say that the ECHR provisions elsewhere in the Bill will cover that. I should like to refer to what Lord Lamont of Lerwick said in another place on 27 October:
	"I recently watched a television documentary about a famous sporting English figure who was tried in France. When asked what he thought about the court verdict, which went against him, he said 'I did not understand a word of the proceedings'. I am not commenting on that case, but a person should not have to go through legal proceedings"—
	in one of our fellow EU countries—
	"without understanding a word of what is said.
	The second point on which a person can be at a huge disadvantage is not having legal aid. There was criticism in the famous case involving plane-spotters in Greece about the quality of lawyers provided."
	I was involved in the case of a British lorry driver who was arrested in Patras, Greece, earlier this year. He was put on trial in a Greek court within 24 hours. He was not given a choice of lawyer, and a local jeweller was pressed into service as an interpreter simply because he understood some English. That is clearly unacceptable, and is the kind of occurrence that led to the minimum procedural safeguards being introduced in another place in clause 22.
	I had the opportunity to raise that particular case with her Majesty's ambassador to Greece, Mr. David Madden, and he and the consul in our embassy in Athens were enormously helpful when I visited them at Easter this year. Coincidentally, while I was in Greece I happened to meet a couple of United States federal marshals who had gone over to Greece from Seattle to try to extradite a drug smuggler and counterfeiter. I was able to have a very useful conversation with them about the different ways in which extradition procedures work. They were concerned to hear about the issues relating to the lorry driver, David Wilson, which I had been raising with our ambassador and consul.
	British citizens who get into difficulties are very well looked after by ambassadors and consuls all round the world. With the new European arrest warrant—about which the Conservatives have strong reservations—and this new legislation coming in, we wanted to ensure that ECHR protections were incorporated in the Bill for the benefit of our citizens. My noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick pointed out that, in the case of the plane-spotters, one was
	"a lady who merely sat in a car reading a newspaper"—
	while the plane-spotting was going on.
	"Most people would have thought that she should have a separate lawyer."
	That was not the case.
	"There is an absence of adequate legal aid in many Mediterranean European countries."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 October 2003; Vol. 654, c. 41.]
	That applies even within the EU, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) described extensively in Committee.
	One reason my noble Friend Lord Lamont of Lerwick and I have been so uneasy about the Bill is that when the Government say that people should not evade justice by crossing national borders, they do not seem to acknowledge that British people in other countries are at a tremendous disadvantage when the legal proceedings under systems such as the Code Napoléon are unfamiliar to them. Similarly, non-British persons who had never visited the UK before might find themselves at a disadvantage before our courts. That is why we must have safeguards in relation to extradition proceedings.
	In the light of the Government's concessions on other matters that we are debating today, we reluctantly accept that they are going to remove clause 22, but I am glad that the Minister at least acknowledged that this proposal from the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in another place represented a worthy aim, and that we were trying to introduce an extra level of protection for British subjects. I am glad that she has put it on record today that she believes that all the things we intended to do in clause 22 are covered in other parts of the Bill. I would not want, in accepting the Government's view on this matter, to suggest that we are totally happy with the European arrest warrant or with everything that the Government are putting forward. We are not. We continue to have massive concerns about the European arrest warrant, as the Minister knows. Very reluctantly, however, in the light of the other concessions, we will go along with the Government on this.

Alistair Carmichael: Yet again, I can say that the Liberal Democrats are broadly content with the totality of the deal that has been struck. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath ((Mr. Hawkins) said that the Conservatives had arrived at their position with some reluctance, and we can understand that. I am pleased with the Minister's assurances that the aims that we were seeking to achieve, particularly in relation to article 6.3 of the ECHR, might be achieved in other ways. I also take on board the Minister's comments about the Secretary of State's role, as it would be under the new clause. I think it was confused, and would be confusing.
	The hon. Member for Surrey Heath said that the clause had been added at the instigation of my noble and learned Friend Lord Goodhart, albeit with Conservative support. I pay tribute to him for all he did: he brought a wealth of experience to the proceedings, allied to good sound Liberal principles. I do not think I am giving away any secrets by saying that last night I received a memorandum from him about the arrangements arrived at in the other place. It says:
	"The Government says that the new clause is unworkable (probably correctly!)"
	I think it fair to say, apropos my earlier comments, that repentance will clearly not be the sole provenance of Ministers today.

Caroline Flint: Let me first confirm that the ECHR deals with the language issue. It guarantees the right to an interpreter if that is necessary, which is entirely right.
	I welcome the endorsement of Opposition Members. As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), we can always present ideas but those ideas are always open to further scrutiny and change, regardless of which side of the House is involved.
	Lords amendment disagreed to.

Clause 63
	 — 
	Extradition Offences: Person Not Sentenced For Offence

Lords amendment: No. 72.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take Lords amendments Nos. 74, 77, 154, 219, 222, 223 and 236.

Caroline Flint: Let me first deal with Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 74. Under the terms of the framework decision on the European arrest warrant, we are obliged to remove the dual criminality requirement for offences falling within the list if they attract a penalty of three years' detention or more in the requesting state. The Bill originally went further by removing the dual criminality requirement for list offences attracting a one-year penalty or more. It was amended in another place to bring it more closely into line with the terms of the framework decision. The Government continue to believe that there is no reason in principle why the United Kingdom should not exceed its international obligations when we think it is in our interests to do so, but on this specific point we recognise the strength of feeling in another place, and are keen to try to accommodate it.
	As the House knows, we have been investigating the offences that are on other EU countries' statute books but have no counterpart in the UK. We have found very few, which is hardly surprising. I am sure Members would expect all EU states to have similar ideas of what constitutes criminal conduct. The practical consequence is that it is hard to conceive of circumstances in which a person might be accused of an offence in another EU country that attracts a penalty in the one-to-three-year bracket but which would not constitute a criminal offence in this country.
	Accepting the amendments, as we propose to do, should not result in the extradition of fewer people. We can therefore respond to the evidently strong and sincere feelings in another place safe in the knowledge that we will not, as we feared originally, be offering sanctuary to those who have committed serious crimes elsewhere in the EU.
	The other amendments seek to include the generic list of offence categories in the Bill. I know that both Opposition parties wanted that, and I am glad that we have been able to oblige. We have also ensured that the list can be amended only to reflect changes agreed at European level—although I hasten to add that we know of no plans for changes—and only by order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. That is exactly in line with the recommendation of the Home Affairs Committee.
	Let me say a little more about the list. Various people have commented critically that the UK does not have offences of, for instance, swindling or xenophobia. The point is that the items in the list are not intended to be precise offences; it is a list of broad categories. While the UK has no offence described as swindling, plenty of our fraud offences fall into that category. Similarly, much of our race relations legislation falls into the racism and xenophobia category. As we have said before, we generally have much more extensive and developed race relations legislation than other EU countries.
	One of the great advantages of the European arrest warrant, along with the list, is that it will enable us to extradite those who come to this country and breach our laws. If someone comes to the UK from Portugal and, while here, incites racial hatred, we shall for the first time be able to secure his extradition. Had we adopted the Conservative stance, that person would have been able to act with impunity. We are still waiting for the Conservatives to explain how that can be in the interests of justice.
	The European arrest warrant offers real benefits to this country. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) has tried to be consensual and supportive in general, but when it comes to this issue he breaks in every now and again with a little snipe against the warrant. We do not think anyone should be allowed to go to another EU country, break its law and expect to get away with that. We have been happy to respond to the Opposition parties' request by including the list.

Nick Hawkins: We are very pleased about the major concessions made by the Government following the defeats that we, the Liberal Democrats and others inflicted on them in another place. There was a great deal of debate in Committee. This was the first group of amendments we discussed when we began the Committee stage here back in January. At that time, the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and I agreed that the Bill was "front-end loaded", in that so many of the big issues were being dealt with at the outset.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome and I have served on many Committees this year, but according to my recollection my colleague in this instance was my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett). It is an easy mistake to make.

Nick Hawkins: I apologise. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon served on the Committee considering this Bill, but the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome and I have served together in the trenches during many Committee stages.
	On this occasion, the Government were defeated by 115 votes to 107 in another place on 27 October. The record of the debate begins in column 66 of that day's Hansard. We are pleased that the Government recognise that the operation of dual criminality should mean that what we proposed all along will not create any loopholes, although I am rather sad that they took so long to do so.
	I shall return shortly to issues relating to not gold-plating the European framework decision, because they were discussed both by us in Committee and in another place. But before I do so, I should point out that amendment No. 236 has been helpfully included in this group at my specific request. I am grateful to the Minister and her private office, and to the Clerks of the House, for Mr. Speaker's deciding literally a few hours ago that it should be so included, rather than being grouped with the mere drafting amendments at the end.
	The European framework decision list was debated at length in Committee and in another place. In Committee, we were taunted somewhat by the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), in respect of the Opposition parties' wanting to debate the framework list's contents and the fact that certain categories, such as xenophobia, are not—as the Minister herself concedes—precise. From our point of view, part of the mischief is the very point that she makes: they are broad categories. Part of our concern was that a British citizen might be subject to an extradition request in respect of an act that is not actually an offence in UK law.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said on Second Reading, and I have said on many occasions, that we wanted part 1 of the Bill to apply only to terrorism, which is why we did not say in Committee that the entire framework list should be included in the Bill. However, following the debates in another place, and in the light of the Government's amendment No. 236, any British citizen who wants to see what extradition he or she might be subject to will at least be able to look at the categories in the European framework list.
	We have not changed our view. We still think that the draconian measures in part 1 of the Bill should have been restricted merely to terrorist offences, and I discussed with the Clerks whether it was possible, even at this very late stage, for me to amend the Government amendments to achieve that end. However, I was advised that it was not possible to draft an amendment that restricted part 1 only to terrorism; it was possible only to draft a restricting amendment that would have included part 3 as well, thereby affecting those whom we want to extradite back to the UK. Had I drafted such an amendment, the Minister would have said, "The Opposition are trying to drive a coach and horses through this Bill." [Interruption.] She is smiling, so I know that that is precisely what she would have done.
	We are not trying to damage the Bill. We recognise that the Minister and Baroness Scotland have made a genuine concession, and we are very pleased that they accepted our point about the framework list. Even though we do not like the list very much, we would rather include it in the Bill than risk British citizens not seeing what they might be subject to. Moreover, we very much welcome the time limit change from 12 months to three years.
	I want to refer briefly to what was said in Committee about the framework list and the time limit. We said that we were seeking to
	"reintroduce the requirement for a possible sentence—for an offence for which someone is to be extradited—to be a minimum of three years. We should recognise that it always used to be three years: that was the minimum sentence specified in the framework directive. Instead, the Government want the sentence to be 12 months in accordance with previous extradition legislation".—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 7 January 2003; c. 14.]
	Our point, which we made throughout in Committee, is that there will probably be more extradition cases under the new provisions. The Minister's predecessor argued that the measure was first introduced in the Extradition Act 1989, but we said that that was not really a fair comparison. We referred at some length to the fact that even before we began our proceedings in Committee, the Labour-dominated Home Affairs Committee had said that it was not happy with the gold-plating of the framework directive. Given that Ministers were unable to convince their own colleagues on that Committee, I and other members of it, including my hon. Friend the Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson)—she played a distinguished part in our proceedings, and I am delighted that she is on the Front Bench with me—felt that it was absolutely necessary not to gold-plate. One of the main complaints from British citizens is that we so often gold-plate a European Union measure and attach all manner of extra sanctions, and that as a result, our citizens are more put upon by the EU than are those of other EU countries.
	The Government have accepted at the very last minute that, because of the dual criminality point that the Minister mentioned, no loophole is in fact being opened up, so we can return to the provision requested by us and by her own colleagues on the Home Affairs Committee, and in respect of which another place defeated the Government. This is very welcome, even though it has come very late. Members on both sides of the House can now say that as a result of the debates in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in another place, we will end up with a better and clearer Bill that will allow British citizens to see what the European framework decision really means. I do not agree with the Minister that broad categories are helpful. They will be a hindrance, and I predict that many cases will arise about the vagueness of the European framework list. But it is at least better that we be able to see what the Government are doing in the Bill.

Alistair Carmichael: I am delighted that the Government have now accepted amendments Nos. 72 and 74. If we have not quite achieved symmetry in this regard, we have certainly come full circle. As the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) said, these issues were debated in Committee on 7 January. I am delighted that, as we come to the end of the substantive part of our proceedings, we have managed to achieve some accord. I am pleased that the Government now accept that the gold-plating that the Bill previously sought to achieve is neither necessary nor desirable, and that the slightly intemperate language that was used in Committee about Opposition Members seeking to create loopholes was without foundation.
	I want to place on the record my feeling of relief at the fact that, despite the application of his ingenuity, the hon. Member for Surrey Heath was unable to find a way to re-engage in the debate on the restriction of part 1 to terrorist proceedings. He said that the matter was debated fully, and it is probably fair to say that it was debated to within an inch of its life; it was certainly debated to within an inch of mine. However, the remaining string of amendments are significant and to be welcomed. It is certainly desirable that they be included, because they provide an important safeguard. When an Act has to be used daily by lawyers and practitioners, it is preferable that it contain as much of such information as possible. Indeed, the scope for confusion and for the giving of poor advice is minimised by including such information, so from a practical point of view—if nothing else—the amendments are to be welcomed.
	I do not share the concern that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath expressed about the exact continuity between the nomen juris applied in foreign jurisdictions, and that which we would use in this country. I suspect that the difference between us is that he is a practitioner in England and Wales, whereas I was trained in Scots law. Scots law has a principle-based system, whereby the importance is not the name that is applied to an act, but the conduct that lies behind it. The Minister is right to say that the category of swindling, for example, could be well understood; it is clear that it could mean just about any species of fraud known to Scots law. To get too hung up on the label that we attach to an offence would not be helpful. I realise that the English and Welsh system approaches matters from a different standpoint: it is not a Roman or principle-based system, as ours is north of the border. I suspect that that is perhaps the genesis of the difference.
	The restriction to terrorism in respect of part 1 only was not something that the Liberal Democrats were able to support. Interestingly, however, having reviewed the Hansard report of Committee proceedings, I saw that, although we had said that we would not support the Conservatives, my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and West Devon (Mr. Burnett) and I recorded no vote at all. It could well be that at that stage were sufficiently bereft of the will to live even to express a preference.

Caroline Flint: I welcome most of the comments from Opposition Members. On the matter of the one or three-year threshold, I was not party to this Bill from the outset, but I see nothing wrong in seeking to set a gold standard in Europe. Unfortunately, on this occasion, other European countries were not prepared to follow our lead on that matter, but our intentions were right and good—to ensure that serious criminals had nowhere to hide. For an offence that carries a sentence of more than one year, we felt that that should be applicable, but we did not secure the support of other European colleagues. We listened to concerns coming from another place, and indeed expressed in Committee, so we believe it is now right to support the amendments on the three-year threshold.
	I am pleased with the comments of the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) about the list and about the difficulties of being too prescriptive or defining too clearly each and every individual crime. Unfortunately, we could have a recipe for paralysis there, given the nature of the Bill's intention to tackle serious criminals. I provided one example of swindling, but looking down the list I note that No. 11 deals with computer-related crime, which is quite a broad category. As the Minister responsible for dealing with high-tech crime, I know that technology is changing all the time, so being too prescriptive in defining individual crimes can be a problem. Sometimes it is necessary to have a broader-based category, but what is important is where the list sits in the context of the Bill.
	We have already discussed some of the safeguards pertaining to the reasons for extradition, the use of the European arrest warrant and all the other associated procedures that would kick into action when a British citizen has committed an offence in Europe or when someone from elsewhere in the EU has committed an offence in the UK.
	I generally welcome the comments that have been made in the debate and I ask the House to support amendments Nos. 72 and 74 and associated amendments in the group.
	Lords amendments Nos. 72 and 74 agreed to.
	Lords amendment No. 111 disagreed to.
	Government amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 111 agreed to.

Clause 1
	 — 
	Extradition to Category 1 Territories

Lords Amendment: No. 1.

Caroline Flint: I beg to move, That this House agrees with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4 to 25, 28 to 71, 73, 75, 76, 78 to 110, 112 to 153, 155 to 218, 220, 221, 224 to 235, 237 to 244.

Caroline Flint: This is a large group of amendments, which represents all the Government amendments that were passed in another place. I should explain why they have been grouped together: it is simply a reflection of the fact that all the amendments were welcomed in the other place. I can assure hon. Members that the Bill was subject to intense and rigorous scrutiny there, and there was no question of the Government trying to sneak anything into the Bill. Every single Government amendment was carefully examined and, I repeat, Opposition Members or Cross Benchers opposed not one of them. I hope that the House will take a similarly positive approach and that we do not spend time unduly on this group.
	Having said that, I should like to make some brief comments about the amendments. Several deal with minor technical and drafting points, which is inevitable with a Bill of this size. However, quite a few make substantive changes to the Bill, and I should like briefly to highlight some of the more significant ones.
	We are providing that the designation of extradition partners will be by the affirmative resolution procedure in line with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in the other place. A part 1 warrant will be acceptable only if it has been issued by a judicial authority in the requesting state. We have imposed a requirement that any person arrested in an extradition case must be given a copy of the warrant as soon as possible, and we have put it beyond doubt that the partial removal of dual criminality cannot apply in any case where any part of the conduct occurred in the United Kingdom.
	We have widened the extraneous considerations provision to ensure that extradition cannot take place in cases where the person would be disadvantaged on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation, and we have tidied up the evidential provisions and clarified the rules on the receivability of documents. As we have already discussed, we have put into the Bill the generic list of 32 offence categories for which dual criminality is partially removed, and provided that it can be amended to reflect changes only at European level—an issue that we debated on the previous group of amendments.
	We have provided for the complete repeal of our existing extradition legislation and built that into the Bill. Incidentally, I should add that we have made a firm commitment that no existing cases in the system will be transferred to the new system. We have inserted a provision to allow the UK to comply with the extradition obligations arising from our ratification of various UN conventions. We have made it clear that the Crown Prosecution Service and other prosecuting authorities have a duty to act in extradition cases.
	I could go on, but that gives the House a flavour of the improvements to the Bill. I should add that many of the changes are responses to points and suggestions that were made, I acknowledge, by Opposition parties. Accordingly, I hope that the House will welcome the amendments and the transition of the Bill into law. The heart of the matter is that crime cannot be allowed to escape because people cross a border. We need to ensure that we work with other mature democracies to ensure that the system can be run as smoothly, efficiently and, I have to say, as cost-effectively as possible without putting at any risk the rights of the individuals concerned.
	I again pay tribute to my noble Friend Baroness Scotland, who has worked exceedingly hard on this and countless other Bills in the other place. I also give my appreciation to hon. Members of all parties who have taken part in debates on the Bill in Committee and to officials who have ably supported Ministers and Committee members. I thank the staff of the House for their help. I hope for a speedy decision on this group of amendments so that the Bill can become law.

Nick Hawkins: I can, as the Minister hopes, be fairly brief in my response. I am grateful to her for her welcome remarks about Opposition parties in the House and in the other place, and I am pleased that the Government are able to accept some of the amendments. We particularly welcome the decision to ensure that any further changes are made by way of affirmative resolution. We debated that at some length in Committee, and I do not propose to go over it again, but it is very welcome.
	I should like to focus on a couple of amendments in the group, not to put any pressure on the Minister today, but to ask her to undertake to write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) and me with further elucidation on any points that remain outstanding.
	First, amendment No. 205 relates to the role of the Lord Advocate in conducting extradition proceedings in Scotland, which is something that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland will know more about than I do from his past professional experience north of the border. It would be helpful if the Minister could give me some information—we did not discuss it in Committee—about the number of extradition cases in which the Lord Advocate has been involved since the earlier Extradition Act 1989, and the Government's best estimate of whether a big increase in the Lord Advocate's work load is anticipated as a result of the changes. I realise that the Government may find it difficult to be precise, but some indication would be helpful.
	Secondly, amendment No. 213 deals with the transmission of warrants by electronic means. I am slightly concerned that electronic means other than facsimile transmission will be introduced. The only requirement is that the designated authority should receive the electronic communication in a form that is intelligible and capable of being used for subsequent reference. I hope that the Minister will be able to write to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland and me to explain a little more about the Government's thinking. Obviously, other electronic means are now used regularly, but we do not want to see any downgrading in the significance of warrants in matters as important as extradition. Given the concerns that many of us have about the lack of security of email—many celebrated cases in other contexts have recently come to light—it would be helpful to know what extra safeguards might be introduced to ensure that electronic communication can be used without interference. Is it the case that something as important as an extradition request will come by other electronic means? I would prefer that such matters were dealt with more formally than in a mere email request. I have little doubt that other hon. Members would share my concern about the lack of security in such transmissions.
	The Minister paid tribute, appropriately, to Baroness Scotland, and I wish to pay tribute to Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and my other noble Friends who made a significant contribution—as the Minister will acknowledge—to improving the Bill. It received many days of debate in the other place, and consideration of it continued there until 6.19 last night. It is a good example of how all the expertise in the other place can massively improve legislation, without the limitation of time imposed by the Government's guillotines. Perhaps the Government will learn the lesson for the purposes of this House. If we had had fewer guillotines, we could have made those improvements here. As it is, with the Government seeking to guillotine everything, such debates must take place in the other place, where there is time for proper debates.
	We are not completely happy with the legislation. My hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Maples) has repeatedly made it clear that he regards this as a bad Bill and the European arrest warrant as something deeply to be regretted. Many other Opposition Members also have considerable reservations, but we will have to see how it works in practice. However, I am certain that it is a much better Bill now, as a result of the Government's concessions and the improvements made by the other place, than when it was first presented to this House about a year ago. The Government need to learn the lessons of that.
	I am grateful to the Minister for the helpful way in which she presented the amendments today. We have had more of a meeting of minds than when the matter was last debated in the House.

Alistair Carmichael: The Minister mentioned the amendment relating to the use of the affirmative procedure and the importance of judicial authority in the issuing of warrants. I welcome those two points, because the Liberal Democrats placed particular emphasis on them in Committee. I am delighted that they now appear in the Bill and that their importance has been accepted.
	I listened to the Minister waxing lyrical about proceedings in the other place. She explained how all the amendments had been considered and fully debated, and I almost began to look forward to a day when I might be translated to the other place. However, I hope that that will not happen for some years yet. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) made a good point when he said that the use of the guillotine in this House is having an adverse effect on our ability to scrutinise Bills. We must continue our attempt to find a better way to deal with legislation, because I am all too aware—as someone who has taken part in a significant number of Committees since I entered the House in June 2001—of the significant deficiencies in the present system. The caveat to that, however, is that any changes will have to be matched by responsibility on both sides of the House. The tendency towards filibustering and making specious and spurious points will have to be resisted by all hon. Members. The remarkable aspect of the way in which the other place operates is that there is a little more statesmanship and bit less politics. All parties in this House could learn something from that.
	The Minister said that the essence of the Bill was to ensure that people responsible for committing crimes could not escape responsibility simply by crossing a border. Nobody could argue with that. Because it is now so much easier to cross borders within the European Union, legislation like this is inevitable. However, in our enthusiasm to reflect that, we should not lose sight of the need to protect the fundamental liberties and rights that we prize in this country. In some small measure, the amendments that we have discussed today and the issues that we discussed in Committee make a real contribution to that. With some reservations, we may be pleased with a job well done on this Bill.

Caroline Flint: I will write to the hon. Member for Surrey Heath on the role of the Lord Advocate and the issuing of words by electronic means, both of which he mentioned. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked about how we perform our duties of scrutiny in both Houses of Parliament. It is fair to say that a combination of talents is brought to Parliament by those who represent their constituents—and therefore have direct experience of what the public feel about issues through surgeries and other activities—and by noble Lords as they perform the job of scrutiny.
	I have mentioned the work of the Home Affairs Committee, which adds to our debate in such areas. The all-party groups and people with particular experience of an issue also add to our discussions. It is important to have opportunities to debate, but that might not always happen on the Floor of the House or in Committee. We need an informed process, and I am pleased that the Government have considered other methods, such as pre-legislative scrutiny, to offer other opportunities to tackle some of the big issues of our time. The Bill deals with big issues, because it is concerned with the rights of individuals as well as the need to fight crime wherever it takes place. The Bill represents good work in both Houses of Parliament, and I look forward to its becoming law and being implemented.
	Lords amendment agreed to.
	Remaining Lords amendments agreed to.
	Committee appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 27 to the Bill: Mr. Alistair Carmichael, Caroline Flint, Mr. Nick Hawkins, Shona McIsaac and Derek Twigg; Caroline Flint to be the Chairman of the Committee; Three to be the quorum of the Committee.—[Derek Twigg.]
	To withdraw immediately.
	Reasons for disagreeing to Lords amendment No. 27 reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords

EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order 119(9) (European Standing Committees),

Trans-European Networks

That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 12817/02, amended draft Decision amending Decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, No. 13244/03 ADD1, amended draft Decision amending an amended draft Decision to amend Council Decision No. 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network, and No. 13297/03, amended draft Regulation amending an amended draft Regulation to amend Council Regulation (EC) No. 2236/95, laying down general rules for the granting of Community financial aid in the field of trans-European networks; and endorses the Government's approach to discussions on these documents.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
	Question agreed to.

PETITION
	 — 
	Fireworks

Andrew Rosindell: I rise on behalf of my constituents Joanne and John Sifleet of Riversdale road in Collier Row, Romford. A horrifying incident took place at their house on the evening of 5 November, Guy Fawkes' night. The daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Sifleet cheated death when, just after 8 o'clock, a massive firework smashed through a double-glazed window and exploded in a room that she had occupied only a few minutes earlier.
	Joanne Sifleet and her husband John were sitting downstairs when a mammoth firework ripped through the upstairs bathroom window, devastating everything in its path. Their daughter Chloe, a pupil at the local Clockhouse infants school in Collier Row, had been in the bathroom only minutes before. Luckily, she escaped injury, having left the bathroom to join her sister Gemma, 4, in another room upstairs. As reported in the local Romford Recorder newspaper, her mother said:
	"We heard this almighty bang . . . the kitchen ceiling started to fall down. We raced upstairs and I could hear my children screaming, 'We don't want to die, Mummy.'"
	Clearly, that was a horrific incident for any family to endure. After it, Mr. and Mrs. Sifleet immediately organised a petition among residents of the Collier Row and Romford area. The petition was collected last weekend and contains well over 100 signatures.
	The petition states:
	To the House of Commons:
	The Petition of the residents of Romford and the Collier Row area
	Declares that "Display Fireworks" and imported non British Standards Fireworks have become such a nuisance to the general public that their sale and illegal importation must be restricted.
	The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Secretary of State for Home Affairs to introduce Legislation which will ban the sale of "Display Fireworks" to the general public and stop the import and sale of non British Standard Approved fireworks.
	To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Eastleigh)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

David Chidgey: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter of great importance to my constituents in Eastleigh. I want to draw the Minister's attention to the plight of the many local residents from foul water flooding after heavy rain.
	I appear to have about three and a half hours to entertain the Minister on this matter, and my file contains a great many complaints from constituents, received over a considerable time. However, he will be relived that I intend to stick to plan A, and be as concise as I can. He will therefore have considerable time to respond.
	It has become all too common in the Eastleigh area that the foul sewers serving residential areas overflow after heavy rain. Gardens and homes are flooded with raw sewage, and lavatories become unusable because the drains are full. Southern Water turns up promptly to clear up the mess afterwards, and that is all very well, but gardens are ruined and homes take many months to recover. If the storm-water drains cannot cope and surface water flooding is involved, residents often end up having to haggle with the water company and their insurers to determine which is responsible for reimbursing them for the costs of the flood damage.
	All too often, as I am sure that the Minister knows, residents who win a satisfactory result have to pay higher insurance premiums. In some cases, they cannot get their insurance renewed at all.
	I shall set out the scale of the problem. Since the 1980s, there has been massive housing development in Eastleigh. Tens of thousands of homes have been built in the area, around what used to be villages. We welcome the regeneration of our communities that has resulted. In recent years, thousands more homes have been built in brownfield developments in the heart of the old Victorian town of Eastleigh. We welcome that too, but it is clear that the drainage and sewage treatment infrastructure has not kept pace with housing developments on greenfield sites around the villages or on the brownfield sites around the old town.
	The Minister will know that water companies like to claim that the problem is that global warming has caused heavier rain, which overloads their systems. However, I doubt that that is entirely true. An analysis by Southern Water's experts of the Eastleigh drainage system shows that the town's sewerage system will not cope with the demands posed by the new housing. After some prodding by myself and others, the company has released the executive summary of a study currently under way of the effect that some 1,400 new houses will have. Those houses are being built on brownfield sites in central Eastleigh.
	The study predicts that a storm of a severity that might occur only once a year—a so-called "one in one year" storm—will cause such an overload on the drainage system that at five points the sewers will overflow on to the highway, and therefore into people's homes. It also predicts that progressively worse flooding will happen as a result of even more intense but less frequent storm events—storms that might happen every 20 or 50 years, for instance. That shows that, without new investment to cater for housing development, residents can expect to suffer flooding at least once a year in five places in an area that is no larger than a square mile. More than half of the new development has already been built.
	Bad though the situation is, that is only half the problem. Sewage from the Eastleigh area is pumped directly into the Chickenhall waste water treatment works, located beside the River Itchen. The Minister will know of that river if he is a fisherman, and of the fine opportunities that it allows for sports fishing on inland water. He will know too that the river is the subject of a sustainability management project, and that an application has been made for EU designation as a special area of conservation. That designation would recognise the river's importance as a special environmental resource.
	Interestingly, Southern Water—like other water companies in a similar position—is licensed by the Environment Agency to discharge partially treated effluent into the River Itchen through a storm-water overflow from its sewage treatment works. Because of the increase in flooding incidents over recent years and those projected for the future, the water company proposes to bring the storm-water overflow into full use, which will inevitably mean more partially treated effluent flowing into the Itchen. Only a few miles downstream, at Gaters Mill, is Portsmouth Water's water-extraction plant. While the people of Portsmouth may not take kindly to the thought of drinking from Eastleigh's effluent, it is a fact that the treatment at the extraction plant renders the water safe. However, what about that long stretch of river between the sewage treatment works and the extraction plant? What will be the impact of increasing the flow of partially treated effluent on the salmon spawning-grounds in the river, on the watercress beds and on the youngsters who use the water sports activity centre provided by the county council? Surely, planning to increase the discharge of waste-water floods into the Itchen flies in the face of attempts to create a special area of conservation free from pollution. We are suffering from a fundamental failure to ensure that our sewage and waste-water treatment systems have kept and do keep pace with demand, particularly in the area that I represent.
	It is important to recall that one of the great achievements in urbanisation in the 19th century was the building of water supply, drainage and treatment systems to serve the swelling populations of our towns and cities. Killer diseases, such as typhoid, were eradicated. Not for nothing did public health engineering become a highly respected profession. It is a sad reflection that all too often in the case of sewers, it is out of sight, out of mind. We are now painfully aware that following decades of underinvestment in the repair and maintenance of our main drainage systems we are left with literally thousands of miles of crumbling, failing sewers. What a way to treat such a valuable legacy left to us by our forefathers.
	How can it be that in the 21st century my constituents are faced with the fear of foul sewage flooding their properties on a regular basis—not because of some rare, exceptional weather occurring perhaps once in every 50 years or so, but every year and every time we get heavy rain? How can it be that while Eastleigh borough council is making every effort to provide affordable homes on brownfield sites in line with Government policy, trying to address the needs of some 10,000 people seeking homes, our water company is wringing its hands over the lack of funds that are needed to expand its sewerage and treatment systems to meet the extra demands? How can it be that its existing sewerage and treatment system is so overloaded that the only recourse is to discharge partially treated effluent into a river that is recognised as being so important to the environment that it should have special protection from pollution?
	I fear that the residents of Eastleigh are not alone in their predicament. This pattern of failure is repeated across the country. One has merely to look at the statistics from Ofwat, from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and from Environmental Data Services to confirm that our water and sewerage companies are buckling under the strain of obsolete and failing infrastructure, increased demand from new development and inadequate streams of essential investment. Clearly, there needs to be a full inquiry into how we regulate, manage and resource the water and drainage industry. We need to look at the roles of local authorities, the Environment Agency and Ofwat and we need to see some joined-up government to ensure that the industry is working in the best interests of the community, the environment and, more important, the customer—my residents.
	We need to ensure that local authorities and water and sewerage companies are fully in the loop where planning applications impact on the demand for drainage. At present the system is that local authorities have recourse to the Environment Agency as a statutory consultee in the process. Surely there is a powerful case for water and sewerage companies to be made statutory authorities under planning regulations. That would end the practice of all too many companies who do not or, even worse, will not reply to planning application notices, leaving local authorities to make decisions in the dark and without expert guidance. We need a statutory consultation process with teeth, not just a rubber-stamp exercise—local authorities constantly complain to me about that—with regulations that place obligations and accountability on the consultees.
	We need to address the powers of the Environment Agency in controlling pollution. Just this week Southern Water—I mention it not because of any particular campaign against it, but because it is the company that serves my area—was found guilty of pumping raw sewage into the Solent. The Minister will know that the Solent is an area of international environmental importance. It is nothing short of an outrage that such an area of water should be subject to such pollution, yet the fine was a mere £5,000. In 2001 the water company is on the record as coming second in the league table of the worst water company polluters in this country, yet its total fines for this year amount to a mere £64,500. That is hardly even an incidental running cost to a company with a turnover which last year was in excess of £436 million. Clearly, there is a powerful case for reviewing the regulation of the industry with regard to investment priorities.
	For far too long maintenance and renewal of sewerage systems has been the poor relation in the industry. I am pleased that Ofwat is now expressing concerns which, I believe, the Government share, about the lack of investment in this area. It is clear that water companies have put the interests of shareholders first. That is not just a knee-jerk reaction such as we so often hear in relation to privatised companies. Ofwat's report for 2002–03 on the financial performance and expenditure of the water companies states:
	"In 2002–2003, dividend cover fell as a result of a higher level of dividends despite lower operating profit. We recognise that investor confidence must be maintained but the level of dividends also needs to be sustainable over the long term. Dividends from regulated business should reflect the cost of capital and distribution to shareholders of a proper portion of the benefits of greater efficiency."
	That leads us directly to the nub of the issue. Ofwat is calling for greater investment in tackling crumbling and failing sewage and waste-water treatment plant. Water companies have failed to make efficiency gains necessary to maintain profits, but have nevertheless maintained their dividends to shareholders. As a result, investment that should have been made in sewage and waste-water treatment has not happened. Having got Ofwat, their customers and my constituents over a barrel, the water companies have the audacity to raise charges by more than a third to meet their obligations. In Eastleigh my constituents face a price hike of 35 per cent.—the highest in the country.
	Eastleigh borough council wrote a letter to Ofwat regarding investment priorities. It concerns asset management planning 4. The first recommendation in the submission is:
	"That the funding currently being used to improve beach quality be diverted to improving the capacity of sewerage works. This would prevent blockages of the system caused by backing up and improve River Quality."
	The point about that is that the total package we are looking for, which would include improvements to our sewage treatment works to introduce techniques to remove nitrates and other chemicals, should not cause a cost increase, as we are told almost daily that beach quality is now up to standard in almost every area. Why, then, are we putting money into that area when we could be putting it into improving the sewerage system?
	The council's second point is that much of the infrastructure serving Eastleigh is reaching the end of its design life or has already passed it. However, technologies are available that could be used to seal the leaking pipes with minimal disruption. The council submits that significant expenditure is necessary to upgrade all existing substandard pipework. Where is the money to come from? It is suggested that the £2.2 billion underspend in asset management plan 3 of all water companies, including Southern Water, could be transferred to enable those works to be carried out.
	Like the council in its submission to Ofwat, we note that Southern Water proposes to increase its water bills by 35.1 per cent. during the AMP period and that such an increase is excessive, especially as in Eastleigh alone there have been two major sewer failures this year; gardens and homes were flooded with sewage and main roads were closed. That was the result of serious underfunding of the infrastructure during the past 20 years. Those are the views of my local borough council and I thoroughly endorse them.
	To draw the attention of the House to the predicament suffered by so many people, I focus on the case of Mr. Alf Bushell, which was featured on Saturday in our local paper, The Southern Daily Echo, under the banner headline, "Veteran's Loo Trek Misery". Alf is an 81-year-old war veteran, a former Royal Marine who helped to shoot down enemy aircraft during the second world war and whose ship sank off the coast of Italy. This man should be treated with respect and dignity, but whenever it rains he has to walk 15 minutes to the nearest public convenience—whatever the weather—because his lavatory becomes blocked. Is it right that Alf and dozens of his neighbours in Consort road, my constituents, should suffer indignities that more correctly belong in the middle ages? I look forward to the Minister's response.

Elliot Morley: I congratulate the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) on obtaining this debate and on outlining such a thorough and comprehensive case. He has genuine concern about those complex problems and I express my sympathy with those of his constituents who have been affected, especially Mr. Bushell and his neighbours. The hon. Gentleman has raised several helpful points and I am pleased to be able to address them in some detail.
	Flooding problems are all too familiar and many hon. Members, including me, have constituents who have suffered. We know very well of the misery that such problems can cause. The Government are anxious that the problems should be addressed and I shall try to respond as positively as I can.
	Sewer flooding and the protection of the environment from waste water discharges from sewage treatment works and sewerage systems are a key concern for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. In tackling those issues we need to take into account such things as statutory obligations under European directives on waste water treatments and habitats—I listened carefully to the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Itchen. We also have domestic obligations in respect of sites of special scientific interest. Sewerage companies and regulators should, and generally do, take those obligations seriously.
	The hon. Gentleman described the particular problems in Eastleigh and I shall address those before setting out the Government's general response to some of the other issues that he raised. My understanding is that a substantial contribution to the problems in Eastleigh is the fact that the pumping station at Bishopstoke and the Chickenhall sewage treatment works are unable to cope with both foul water and rainwater during especially heavy rainfall. That is the root of the problem. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that, although increased heavy rainfall contributes to the problem, there is a range of other issues. I do not dispute that.
	The facilities at Chickenhall include tanks to store storm water until the increased flows subside. However, the tanks do not have sufficient capacity to contain storm water during severe weather conditions and that has led to occasional flooding of adjacent land and properties. Addressing that problem will also limit pollution of the River Itchen and could prevent flooding of upstream properties by restricting flows to the works. For those reasons, I am glad to be able to tell the hon. Gentleman that I understand that, by 31 March 2005, Southern Water plans to install additional storm water storage capacity at the Chickenhall works. Furthermore, the company proposes to change the storm water management arrangements at the works.
	Those proposals—if they go ahead—will allow excess storm water to be discharged directly into the river when the storage tanks are full, instead of flooding the surrounding area. Any discharges from the existing outfall, which are only consented to by the Environment Agency during heavy rainfall events, will contain screened foul water highly diluted by rainwater. No proposal has been made, or would be considered by the Environment Agency, for the construction of a new raw sewage outfall at the works. That would not be approved.

David Chidgey: I concur with the Minister: there is no question that raw untreated sewage will go into the river. However, as he knows, there are three stages in sewage effluent treatment. We do not have tertiary treatment, although the sewage is treated to ensure the removal of bacteria. I am worried that although we may be meeting the standards downstream at Gaters Mill, where there are excellent treatment works to make the water potable, we do not have the protection that I want in the river itself—between the sewage works and the water extraction treatment works. The area is supposed to have improved protection from pollution due to its environmental importance, so I am worried to hear the Minister say that Southern Water's management plan is to increase, at times, the flow of partially treated effluent into the river.

Elliot Morley: I very much hope that will be an interim measure. In addition to the work to improve the storm-water handling capacity—in essence, at peak times—I expect the company to provide more stringent treatment standards by 31 December 2005. The hon. Gentleman is right to note that there is only secondary treatment, but the proposal is that standards should be tightened up.
	Tighter standards are required to take account of population growth in the area and to protect good water quality in the River Itchen. I expect improvements at the treatment works. A range of new technologies is becoming available, which will considerably improve discharge quality. They are currently under consideration by all water companies, and I hope that Southern Water will look into them.
	I shall touch briefly on the general principle of sewer flooding, as the hon. Gentleman is right about its prevalence. Last autumn, Ofwat asked sewerage companies to consider further measures to tackle sewer flooding. It specifically asked companies to prioritise sewer flooding alleviation projects primarily on an assessment of the severity and frequency of the problem, not simply on the cost. Companies were also asked to include the worst cases of external flooding in addition to internal flooding.
	We expect that additional investment by companies before 2005 will be considered by Ofwat, as part of the logging-up process, and I understand that Southern Water has agreed to spend an additional £10 million on major flood alleviation schemes in the period up to 2005. In the longer term, as part of the current price control regime, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, Ofwat asked sewerage companies to include a prioritised list of projects and costs in their business plans for 2005–10. Companies could include costed proposals to extend or improve their sewerage network.
	I understand the pertinent points that the hon. Gentleman made about the level of investment and dividend, efficiency savings and costs to consumers. Southern Water's draft business plan suggested a 35 per cent. increase, but that was the initial business plan. The regulator will put those plans under rigorous scrutiny. I am sure that all the assumptions and bids will be carefully scrutinised. I want to see continued improvement, but I do not want the cost simply to be passed on to consumers. Efficiency gains, company profits and long-term investment programmes must be considered. We would expect the regulator to look at all those issues, and I have every confidence that the regulator will do so.
	My Department's role in the review is to make clear to companies, regulators, customers and investors the Government's views on such issues, as well as the maintenance and renewal of sewerage assets. In the initial guidance that the Secretary of State issued to the director general of water services in January, it was made clear that sewerage undertakers' assets should be maintained in a way that will deliver a high standard of serviceability to customers and the environment and that, within the priorities of water company programmes, there needs to be an increase in the rate at which companies rectify sewer flooding problems if they are to get on top of the situation. That guidance has been given to the regulator. We want to ensure that sewer flooding and sewer repair and maintenance continue to be high on the agenda of both Ofwat and the companies.
	As part of the current stage of the price review, we are considering issues that should be included in the final periodic review guidance to Ofwat, which will be published in January. That ministerial guidance relates to the kind of priorities that we want to see. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that all the issues that he has raised, including costs, will certainly be taken into consideration as we prepare that guidance.

David Chidgey: I can see that the Minister is getting to the end of his response, so I want to intervene quickly. One of the issues that he has perhaps not been able to address so far is that of local authorities being in the loop with water companies as statutory consultees. I mentioned that in my remarks. Could he perhaps give me some guidance on what is proposed in that respect?

Elliot Morley: I am happy to do so. Those are important issues, and we are considering that point. It is true to say that water companies are not currently statutory consultees in the planning process. I agree that, in relation to further housing development in Eastleigh, it is important for Southern Water to be involved in the process to understand the projections, so that it can consider the implications for its infrastructure. We have addressed that to a very large extent.
	Planning guidance, which is issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, makes it clear to planning authorities that they need to work closely and at an early stage with water and sewerage undertakers, so that new water supply and disposal infrastructure is timed to coincide with the development that it serves so that, if expansion in needed, the plans for that investment can be put in place. Of course, that is the point of structure plans and district plans, which are publicly available so that everyone who has an interest can be aware of what is planned for the long term.
	I understand that there is no evidence to suggest that those non-statutory arrangements are inadequate. My information is that Southern Water is often consulted on planning authorities by the local authorities and that it is happy to offer guidance and advice, so it feels very much involved. Of course, if it were felt that the current arrangements, which are based on planning policy guidance, were not satisfactory, we might want to consider that in the future.

David Chidgey: To provide a little more information, it is correct that discussions between Southern Water and Eastleigh borough council are good at present, but that is as a result of several years of frustration. I make the point again that planning officers in the borough council have had to suffer the frustration of asking for comment from the water company on large-scale planning applications coming through their office, and have had the sorry situation of not getting a response at all. That is the issue—is compulsion necessary? Does a statutory obligation need to be placed on the water companies so that they are part of this planning process?

Elliot Morley: The simple answer to that, if the situation is working, is no. If the situation is not working, however, we may have to look at other measures.
	On the hon. Gentleman's final comment about fines in relation to pollution, I recognise that that is an issue. He will know that fines are a matter for the courts, and they often depend on the circumstances in relation to the particular advice. The issue is often raised with the Department, and I will certainly bear his comments in mind.
	I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's case. Southern Water has given undertakings that proposed improvements are to be made, which I hope will deal with some of the problems. In the longer term, on the price review, we expect water companies to put in place proper long-term plans to deal with the issue of sewer flooding, which will be part of the ministerial guidance. I repeat to him that that final guidance will go out in January. We are in the process of compiling it, and I will take seriously the comments that he has made.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Four o'clock.

NOTHING